The B787 uses just 20% less fuel than a TB20 (both fully loaded) per mile flown.
How did you arrive at that number? I calculated the B787 be 400% more fuel efficient.
The TB20 does at best 13 nm / gal / 4 persons, or 0.02 US Gals per nm per passenger. B787 does 0.004762 US Gals per nm per passenger according to B787 fuel burn.
So let’s check the facts. France has (2013) 26979 privat pilots, the UK about 28000 (2005), and Germany 69520 (2013). So I guess you are right, not.
At least France has the most GA aircrafts, shared across less pilots. Nice!
GA Airplanes 2011:
France: 32,410
Germany: 21,603
UK: 20,040
Source
How did you arrive at that number?
From the fuel burn per passenger kilometre given in a Boeing 787 advertisement a couple of years ago.
> Wouldn’t if be better of you put your Auster in the experimental category? That would also relieve you of the EASA maintenance rules.
I don’t think that’s a possibility here. As it stands, the LAA permit system is perfect for me. I don’t need an EASA license (I have an FAA license), and the prior arrangement the CAA had continues to be in effect for Annex II aircraft. Moving to any EASA regulated regime would require me to go through the additional expense of an EASA license and having to maintain both an FAA and EASA medical.
In any case, the hours count here towards EASA license holders currency, and EASA license (and NPPL and other foreign license holders) can fly G reg permit aircraft with no additional paperwork, costs or bureaucracy.
But risk is first and foremost a function of the probability that the “risky business” actually will happen in the first place.
I work partly in Risk Management and I seem to recall that risk level – in simplistic models anyway – is usually calculated as the mere product of impact and likelihood. You mitigate a risk either by reducing the likelihood of the risk event happening or by reducing the impact in case it actually happens.
I think they just looked at it from the POV of what people who want to do AOC busting are most likely to want to do. The national CAAs have decades of experience with AOC busting.
IMHO the long standing UK rule with 4 cost-shareable seats was done that way because 6-seater twins like the Seneca are almost practical for charter (illegal charter in this case). And e.g. the 421 is even more practical.
I doubt that crashing comes into the equation at all. Crashes are rare (much rarer than the various possible forms of illegal cost sharing / pilot reimbursement) and anyway anybody can carry five passengers in a 6-seater without any cost sharing (and still crash it) so it comes down to what is a reasonable expectation of safety. Clearly somebody climbing into a GA plane should not have the same expectation as climbing into a 747, but the argument will never be settled because you have to assume some level of intelligence.
I work partly in Risk Management and I seem to recall that risk level – in simplistic models anyway – is usually calculated as the mere product of impact and likelihood. You mitigate a risk either by reducing the likelihood of the risk event happening or by reducing the impact in case it actually happens.
Yes, but you have to find the likelihood. The likelihood is usually exposure per annum multiplied by the chance of something happening per unit of exposure.
Climbing Mount Everest is extremely high risk, but if you climb it only once in a lifetime, the added risk in your life is insignificant.
Climbing Mount Everest is extremely high risk, but if you climb it only once in a lifetime, the added risk in your life is insignificant.
As far as Maths are concerned, this is not true. But we are drifting far away from the original topic of the thread…
How do you figure? The older you get, the more risky each day becomes. We are all going to die, eventually, with 100% certainty.
A recent development here might change the FAA position on the advertising of cost shared flights.
This thread is also relevant.
