The way that reads to me, Josh, is that you are just agreeing with me. There is no data supporting that N-regs have a worse accident record and the premiums (for any given level of pilot qualifications and/or training) are exactly the same for N-reg as for G-reg (etc).
The Euro HPA requirement is just a course, which can e.g. be disposed of by having any ICAO ATPL exam pass done at any time in the past (and thus a lapsed pass is OK). It is a self evident sham because the ATPL written exam (or exam set) bears almost no relation to any handling quirks of the aircraft. It is just another barrier to entry which Europe does just for the fun of it.
Graham Hill was a curious case. Very little of the real detail is known (beyond the AAIB report) but what is known is that his plane was not correctly registered and thus it had no CofA, thus it had no insurance. The situation has remained undetected for some years. So when he crashed it, there was no payout. If you know how aircraft ownership and operations work (which any owner does, or damn well ought to) then it’s easy to see how this could happen. One route (no idea if this happened in this case) is having an Export CofA done on an N-reg, which causes the FAA to de-register it, but you then change your mind and you stay on N-reg……….
I think we probably are. The root of this though is that I am genuinely concerned at people with low currency flying SPIFR in aircraft with a capability of running away from them and doing some serious damage. Two crew hard IFR is bloody hard work at times, and when I do fly single pilot it is in slow and relatively simple SEPs. The thought of operating something fast and slippery, with slick but patchy automation in those conditions on my own is not something that fills me with joy.
The thought of the crowd this is being marketed at doing so is a recipe for an unhealthy accident rate. The problem is that as long as people choose to do so in fields on their own, the FAA is quite happy to continue to let people kill themselves.
I only mentioned Graham Hill as an example of the financial consequences of being uninsured. Similarly, there were quite expensive legal claims over a Seneca that crashed at Newmarket with Frankie Dettori on board, which the racehorse company ended up wearing.
The State has no business is controlling an individual’s attitude to risk.
The only considerations should be passenger safety and 3rd party safety.
Passenger safety arguments ultimately reduce to a debate concerning what expectations should a Joe Public of average IQ have of the safety of the flight. Most agree that they should be lower than when climbing into an A330 (well maybe not AF447).
3rd party injuries are so rare they don’t matter at all.
So that leaves you with a debate on the extent to which the State should safeguard low IQ passengers.
There is a second order debate on the national health service costs, looking after injured pilots. These are quite low since (in the present thread context i.e. a high perf aircraft loss of control) they will mostly be quickly dead.
“Real pilots of course drive a Glas GT Link or maybe a Cord 810 Link”
“Power came from a 4,739 cc (289 cu in) Lycoming V8 of the same 125 hp (93 kW) as the L-29”
“Early reliability problems, including slipping out of gear and vapor lock, cooled initial enthusiasm.”
Yep, sounds about the level of tech GA is used to :-)
http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/maryland-phenom-100-crash-kills-six
I disagree that third party casualties can be ignored. When third party injuries do happen, they cause a pretty big political hue and cry. It takes only one. I don’t pretend to know the answer, and I agree with you about personal risk, but plenty of approaches are over built up areas. Also think the Citation that went into the house at Biggin (again, private flight…)
Anyway, pub time! Merry Christmas…
Silvaire,
I like your classification much better than mine, absolutely to the point 
Josh, the Citation that crashed at Biggin was crewed by two professionals fully type rated wasn’t it?
It was, however, once again a private flight. That crew would not have been allowed near an AOC operation. The point was more to show that Third-Party damage was not negligible and did happen.
Agreed on the 3rd party liabilities.
Without getting to the specifics of any particular accident I am not sure AOC ops are statistically better than private flights, a lot of business flying is private and has a good record, and there are many perfectly competent pilots flying privately, so I don’t think it’s as simple as “AOC is good Private is bad”
That crew would not have been allowed near an AOC operation
It’s probably bad form to say this about dead people but from what I know from people who knew the crew, I think the above comment is spot on. However the AAIB report thought that poor maintenance (on the throttle mechanism) was partly to blame.
And we all know that Part 145 maintenance is perfect (a 145 company would have had a Form 1 for that missing rivet) so hey that must be the solution 
I think the main reason bizjet AOC ops are safer than bizjet non-AOC ops is mainly due to the mandatory recurrent crew training. But also the mission profile is necessarily more benign (runway lengths etc). Maintenance will always be somewhat “random”…
