I must be the STUPID CMR pilot.

[8HourPilot]

Agreed they are everywhere, but you have to admit, the 91 world is something else.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

Skyboy's obviously someone who'd argue that the sky wasn't blue just for the sport of it.

Since he can't understand the point here's one more try. IDIOTS EXIST IN EVERY FACET OF AVIATION. It's ridiculous to try and submit there are greater concentrations in one area or another.

But I'm sure he'll be back along telling me I'm wrong somehow.

I don't really need to argue it, the accident rates of corporate aviation versus 121 speak for themselves.

 

[standaman]

Whoever questions what another crew does to keep the flight safe is an idiot.

 

[AvroSucks]

Don't You Ever Think About Deicing My Gin And Tonic. I Don't Know How I Would Live.

 

[Mercury]

Ah yes the 91 vs 121 thread has been reborn!!!! I like this one almost as much as the ABC vs XYZ airlines arguement which is of course a close second to the my RJ can beat up your RJ discussion. Yes i agree 121 is a highly standardized environment and as i said in other posts my hat is off to the folks in the various training depts for teaching and enforcing these high standards.
Part 91 operators run the gambit from one aircraft owner/operator types that make your pack your own lunch so they can save a nickle, to the Fortune 100 that have FOMs or SOPs that are just as standardized and definitive as a 121 carrier. Especially if your DO is former military or 121. As a matter of fact we have 2 pilots that are former 121 check airmen/examiners.

H25B has sounded off on this subject before and once again he is right on the money...idiots exist in every facet of aviation.... The key is to operate as a professional regardless of whether your flying a Cub, a 'Bus or a Jungle Jet.
I've seen mistakes made by 700 hr fo's as well as guys with 10 years in the same type aircraft, God knows ive made my fair share, the key my friends is to learn from your errors, bank your experiences and mature as a professional
pilot.

DAMM I told myself I wasnt gonna get involved in this anymore

 

[Jack Mahogoff]

Deicing:

It's better to do it and not need it than to need it and not do it.

 

[h25b]

the accident rates of corporate aviation versus 121 speak for themselves.

Yep, they speak for themselves alright. Just not for your side of the arguement...

You obviously want to lump in any average Joe with an airplane as "Corporate" and that's not exactly how it works.

This is from the NBAA web site...

"Aviation safety expert Bob Breiling, whose numbers NBAA relies upon, calculates from NTSB data accident statistics using a more precise approach that allows for “apples-to-apples” comparisons. Breiling defines corporate aircraft as any airplane flown by a professional crew. For these types of operations, the fatal accident rate is 0.014 per 100,000 hours – which is nearly identical to that of the scheduled air carriers (0.012 per 100,000 hours). "

The entire article can be found here...
http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/safety/20041130.pdf

Would you like some hot sauce with that crow ??? If you're going to make uneducated, blanket, BS statements at least run a quick web search and get some facts.

The fatal accident rate for "corporate" (my definition, not yours) is .002 higher than scheduled Part 121 operations. Hardly anything to boast about on your part. Especially in light of the fact of the demanding nature of corporate flying. (International, Mountains, Non-Schedules, Long Hours, Short Runways, etc...)

 

[SkyBoy1981]

I don't know how he got his numbers, but what I do know is that I recall at least 3 corporate accidents in the past couple of years where they have failed to deice and people have been killed. Any significant 121 accidents you care to share with us in recent years? I don't recall very many that were pilot error since AAL ran it off the runway in LIT, and that was about 7 years ago. By the way, don't bring back the dead horse about the Pinnacle plane..that wasn't even a 121 flight.

 

[h25b]

I don't know how he got his numbers, but what I do know is that I recall at least 3 corporate accidents in the past couple of years where they have failed to deice and people have been killed. Any significant 121 accidents you care to share with us in recent years? I don't recall very many that were pilot error since AAL ran it off the runway in LIT, and that was about 7 years ago. By the way, don't bring back the dead horse about the Pinnacle plane..that wasn't even a 121 flight.

I know exactly how he gets his numbers. It's called research. He is using a very simple threshold of "any airplane flown by a professional crew"... Even you should be able to figure that out.

And yes, the PCL flight is fair game. Operated by a "professional" crew and would you like me to tell you how many "empty, repositioning" legs we have to do in corporate and can seem to pull off with out impressing each other with the "410 Club" ??? It's a bunch buddy... The only reason it wasn't a 121 flight was because dispatch couldn't figure out how to put 50 unsuspecting, paying, victims on board before the end of the business day...

Who gives a $hit about 3 accidents in recent years ?? Does that override the overall fatal accident rate ? NO..

You were the one that said, "the accident rates of corporate aviation versus 121 speak for themselves" when clearly they don't. The numbers don't BS quite they way you do.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

So no comment on the crashes the last few winters with corporate crews not deicing? Or examples of recent fatal 121 crashes that were pilot error? Come on, your disappointing me. Also, I'm working on a way to disprove your NBAA numbers, just haven't closed the gap yet.

 

[h25b]

So no comment on the crashes the last few winters with corporate crews not deicing? Or examples of recent fatal 121 crashes that were pilot error? Come on, your disappointing me. Also, I'm working on a way to disprove your NBAA numbers, just haven't closed the gap yet.

You want comment ? Sure, here's a quote... "They were idiots..." Plain and simple. I think you were referring to the Ebersol crash, the TEB Challenger overrun, and the AGCO 604 (operated by Epps Aviation/PDK) out of the U.K. I personally think that these all highlight an industry wide general lack of understanding of swept wing, high-speed aerodynamics. (much like the PCL accident)

The TEB Challenger compares (from what I was told) to the U.S. Airways Express Beech 1900D accident in CLT in terms of improper C.G./Loading as it's becoming clear that icing was only a small part of the overall huge chain of errors.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

The "per 100,000 hours" is what is deceiving about the NBAA's statistics. 100,000 hours is a low number considering the millions of hours per year that corporate aircraft fly, and you can at least double that number for airlines. Its like saying an airline can get fuel at one place for $2.45, and at another place for $2.40. A nickel...big deal right? At the scale of only a gallon, yes it seems small. However when factored over a period of a year using tens of millions of gallons that is going to make a difference.

So, when factored over a period of time (years) using tens of millions of flight hours, the difference between those small decimal numbers is going to be much more significant. I'm trying to find exact numbers as to how many hours per year corporate aircraft fly versus airline aircraft so that I can put this into perspective, however I have not had much luck. I mean, if the NBAA wasn't hiding something with these numbers, why not give us figures that are more practical? Such as exact number of accidents from both sides over the past 10 years? Instead they bury it under some figure that represents the accident rate over a period of a few days or weeks (100,000 hours).

 

[h25b]

I don't think what you are saying passes the smell test. Fatal accidents/100,000 flight hours is what it is. It's an industry standard. It simply states how many fatal accidents occur per every 100,000 hrs. Cut and dry. You're digging yourself in to a hole here buddy.

Here's a link to the CG issue of that TEB Challenger..

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=365438&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchannel_businessweekly_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2FNTSBC03285.xml

O.K.... You are saying the rate of that 1 nickle per 1 gallon over a thousand gallons is somehow different than how many times a given aircraft operator manages to kill someone over a 100, a 1000, or even 100,000 flight hours. By your reasoning you are saying that just because one guy is buying more gas per year that somehow the rate of of savings has somehow changed ???

It doesn't matter how long the corporate operator took to accumulate that 100,000 flight hours. Let's just say it took a corporate jet 10 years to accumulate 100,000 hrs. and it took an RJ 5 years. They were both in the air and exposed to the hazards of flight for the same amount of time. So if the corporate jet killed people once in ten years and the RJ killed people once in 5 years chances of getting killed in either is still the same. In terms of time however, the corporate jet was actually better because it only killed people once in 10 years and the RJ killed people once in 5 years...

Leave me alone brother, I took statistics in college and actually interned in a quality control department tracking failure rates of turbo boost pressure sensors for various ambient relative humidity conditions.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

I don't think what you are saying passes the smell test. Fatal accidents/100,000 flight hours is what it is. It's an industry standard. It simply states how many fatal accidents occur per every 100,000 hrs.

Exactly..and 100,000 hours is what...a couple of days for airlines and maybe a few weeks for corporate operations? Now, factor that over a period of 5 years and how many more accidents do you think you will have? Like I said, I wish I had numbers that represent the number of hours flown per year on each side, but I cannot seem to find this information.

 

[h25b]

Exactly..and 100,000 hours is what...a couple of days for airlines and maybe a few weeks for corporate operations? Now, factor that over a period of 5 years and how many more accidents do you think you will have? Like I said, I wish I had numbers that represent the number of hours flown per year on each side, but I cannot seem to find this information.

Nevermind, you'll never get it...

 

[SkyBoy1981]

Awww c'mon. You're no fun. BTW, I found something that said airlines fly approximately 13 million hours per year. So yeah, that 100,000 hour mark would be reached within 3 days.

 

[54fighting]

Just some FYI, those 2 challenger accidents last year were Part 135, not 91. Might want to get your facts straight before lipping off. I am pretty sure that 135 is included with accident numbers for all corporate aircraft. Take those numbers out and you will see that straight 91 is less than airline. Not here to split hairs about who is better...we are all the same and hopefully can learn from others' experiences instead of pi$$ing all over them

Most reputable 91 operators have ops manuals taken right from 121. Been a CA on both sides.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

Yeah, don't get me wrong..there are quite a few good, safe 91 operations out there. I'm sure quite a few of you work for them (h25b included) and do your part to ensure that they are run in a safe and professional manner, so don't take my comments personally. There are crappy airlines too, and if you want to dog them you won't see me trying to defend them. Go ahead, make fun of Mesa all you want...I don't care.

 

[h25b]

Awww c'mon. You're no fun. BTW, I found something that said airlines fly approximately 13 million hours per year. So yeah, that 100,000 hour mark would be reached within 3 days.

O.K... One more time...

So lets just say the airlines manage to fly 100,000 hrs. in 3 days. Well, by the data we've established that means they would have had .012 fatal accidents in 100,000 hrs. I'll guess (conservatively) that a corporate jet flys 600 hrs./yr.and the average airliner flys 3000 hrs./yr. (I know when I left CHQ that the last Saab I flew had accumulated 30,000 hours in 10 years)

Your chance of having a fatal accident for each hour of airline flight = .0000012 (.012 / 100,000)
Your chance of having a fatal accident for each hour of corporate jet flight = .0000014 (.014 / 100,000)

So your chance of a fatal accident in a corporate jet in a year = .00084 (.0000014 x 600 = .00084)

And your chance of a fatal accident in an airliner in a year = .0036 (.0000012 x 3000)

So on a yearly bases the airliner will be 4.28 times as likely to kill someone.

Check my math, it's getting late...

 

[SkyBoy1981]

I see what you are getting at, and you have a point. I suppose if you consider the lower number of flight hours with corporate operations they would then have a lower accident rate over a period of time, just not over a specific number of hours flown. Anyway, I'm getting too tired to think about it myself...good argument as always though.