I wouldn’t criticise that attitude, but nor would I seek to impose it on others.
Jacko I think w_n’s point, and I agree with it, is exposing passengers. They do not have an informed view on the risk, or very probably don’t, and if there was unfortunately a mishap (while the PT-6 is bombproof, what about a tyre failure, stick pusher failure, fumes in the cockpit, asymmetric flap, etc, etc) with innocent passengers harmed this is not a good thing for GA. So in short I agree with you in a round about way, this operator should not impose his risk appetite on others.
I think w_n’s point, and I agree with it, is exposing passengers.
I have to agree with W_N on this too. We have an extra duty of care to passengers. When another pilot chooses to come flying with me (or I with them) they make a somewhat informed choice. they know the risks that they expose themselves to and choose to accept it.
Non-pilot passengers are different. They don’t, or at least may not have, the knowledge to make the same risk assessment. Many nievely assume that private GA is just as safe commerical air travel.
I imagine that’s even more so when they hop into something as nice as a PC-12.
In that sense I think W_N is correct and passengers shouldn’t be unduly exposed to additional risk.
Certainly not, but why hammer on this particular case so much? Just because this one is “fancy”?
Thousands of flights in piston aircraft with “unknowing pax” on board are done each day from runways which don’t allow a safe accelerate and stop. They all have a few crucial seconds when a complete engine out would likely be very serious for the health of the occupants. Yet nobody here talks about those.
I’d rather have those few seconds in a modern, well-maintained turbine aircraft than in an old, rattling piston at full power.
I can’t speak for W_N but this might give someone something to think about.
Let’s face it… and call me “boring” if you like… the correlation is blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever related to or worked with other people. People don’t change from one aspect of their life to another.
This PC12 pilot might be the world’s best pilot but the whole thing doesn’t come across like that at all. But then one could say that about a lot of aviation stuff on Youtube.
Jacko wrote:
…and if he bothers to reply he might reasonably ask you to mind your business
Believe me, I mind mind own business almost all the time. But this guy is – out of his own will! – showing the whole world what a superhero womanizer pilot he is by posting his stunts on YouTube. And by doing so, he must be aware that this will attract not only applause.
And yes, at work I am one of those “…deep inside the flight envelope within the narrow range of maneuver that delivers smooth and safe rides to the passengers…” because that is exactly what they pay me for. The deeper inside the envelope, the better. After a smooth ride, one usually gets a better tip.
what_next wrote:
After a smooth ride, one usually gets a better tip.
Didn’t know you guys got tips, but sadly it must be so dependent on other factors (and the “tippers” probably will not understand that)
And yes, at work I am one of those “…deep inside the flight envelope within the narrow range of maneuver that delivers smooth and safe rides to the passengers…” because that is exactly what they pay me for. The deeper inside the envelope, the better. After a smooth ride, one usually gets a better tip.
WN, we all understand that you represent the “professional” end (“professional” not as the contrary of “unprofessional”, but as the contrary of “private”) end of GA. And your insights from that angle of the business are often quite interesting here.
But please understand that most of us here are private flyers who cannot or don’t want to operate to those standards and still all in all do it at very reasonable and contained risks. Would you try to be a bit less imperative, maybe?
But this guy is – out of his own will! – showing the whole world what a superhero womanizer pilot he is
That is your personal interpreation. Having gotten to know him (the pilot) I must say you are wrong.
That’s why I posted the ASDA table, at close to five tons the PC12 should be treated by the book even using subjective ‘private’ risk containment practice.
boscomantico wrote:
Having gotten to know him (the pilot) I must say you are wrong.
So why is he posting his stuff on YouTube the way he does then?
boscomantico wrote:
But please understand that most of us here are private flyers …
I do understand. And I don’t think I ever criticised anyone of you for anything you showed us here. Sometimes I also fly privately. And I have done enough stupid things and (luckiliy) got away with them. But I don’t boast with them here or on YouTube. And I never took unsuspecting passengers with me when I did some of the riskier stuff. I think that makes a big difference.
Certainly not, but why hammer on this particular case so much? Just because this one is “fancy”?
Thousands of flights in piston aircraft with “unknowing pax” on board are done each day from runways which don’t allow a safe accelerate and stop. They all have a few crucial seconds when a complete engine out would likely be very serious for the health of the occupants. Yet nobody here talks about those.
I agree absolutely. But I would go further – I see no evidence to support an assertion that GA passengers are “naïve” or “unknowing”. The mere fact that these particular PC12 passengers are presentable blondes, doesn’t make them idiots. Indeed some of them can and probably do read a newspaper, so they know fine that every small aeroplane is a potential death trap, and they may even have clocked the rustic nature of the airport facilities.
Professional pilots have much to teach us amateurs, but if they think they’re significantly better at assessing aviation risk than their paying passengers, or our guests, they flatter themselves without objective justification.
