what_next wrote:
In an ideal world that would be the case…Well, even in an ideal world the student wouldn’t be born with the CPL/ME/IR, would she?
All by the book so to say.
I don’t have any objection to that — on the contrary. What I object to is the claim that pilot training could possibly be as safe as CAT.
Student pilots must fly solo. They must start with zero previous solo experience. Their risk-taking attitude will be unknown. They will be flying light SE aircraft.
I cannot see this being as safe as 2 experienced pilots, fully qualified, in a comparitivly heavy twin-engine aircraft.
While it might be reasonable to aim for this safety level on flights with an instructor.
I am not sure MEP flying cant be as safe as CAT. What are the additional risks? Well weather is a risk, and clearly flying in very poor weather will introduce a risk factor not prevalent in CAT with the advantage of weather radar (albeit which some MEPs will have), robustness, weather topping ability and MC discipline. Engine failure at flight crititcal stages is also a factor, but in MEPs with adequate climb performance no more at risk that CAT. So a well maintained MEP, operating with adequate caution with respect to weather it seems to me should be statistically as safe?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
What are the additional risks?
Many more takeoffs and landings per hour, which are statistically the phases with the highest risk? More manouevering and exercises like engine-out procedures. It would be silly to expect that this could be done as safely (measured by what, is another question) as commercial air transport.
The reason you put people through risks while they fill their experience bucket and empty their luck bucket is so that they can later achieve the desired level of safety when flying with passengers.
Many reasons why airlines are safer than anything else flying e.g.
)There is no way any piston MEP ops can approach airline safety and anybody writing that as an objective in an accident report is simply not living in the real world.
I am not sure MEP flying cant be as safe as CAT. What are the additional risks?
In theory some MEP can achieve Performance B levels of safety, if operated commercially – this isn’t the equivalent of Performance A aircraft in commercial air transport operations.
In practice MEP have a worse safety record than SEP. Non complex SEP have quite a good safety record, but still several orders of magnitude worse than CAT.
Peter wrote:
easy” airports in most cases especially in the low cost airline ops
Agreed on the other points, but this one is simply wrong. LoCos (in Europe) fly to a lot of secondary and not so ‘easy’ places.
The not so easy might refer to having to fly a 737 on a non precision circling approaches in IFR to secondary airports, some I recall perhaps only served by an NDB?
[post moved]
Peter wrote:
Many reasons why airlines are safer than anything else flying e.g. highly capable aircraft (de-ice, radar, pressurised, ~5000fpm climb rate, FL350 ceiling, etc) good systems redundancy extremely reliable engines high build quality compared to anything in GA 2 crew operating proper task separation both pilots passed the 14 ATPL exams including the Air Law one written by a Portugese ATCO (only kidding as to relevance ) flying the same route over and over adherence to strict minima (and one crew member supposedly reporting the other if exceeded) always flying IFR; visual approaches done either never or in CAVOK conditions no distractions with flight planning – flight plan filed by OPS good lightning protection – unlike a DA42 which on past reports will cost you 5 figures if you get hit “easy” airports in most cases especially in the low cost airline ops CAT3 capable in most casesThere is no way any piston MEP ops can approach airline safety and anybody writing that as an objective in an accident report is simply not living in the real world.
Maybe not, but that is why I excluded “weather” a significant factor in so many accidents. In other words IF you operate a MEP in sensible weather, more than possible in most training situations that covers a lot of your points. As to performance there are quite anumber of twins that will perfom well on one engine and have good redundancy.
I agree the safety record will never be as good but theoretically I am still not convinced operated in the “right” way why it should fall so far short.
