Single versus Dual Pilot Operations in a King Air

[stupidpilot]

I think Bird had a valid point. If the trial would go to jury, the morons that generally serve in a jury would almost surely serve up a huge payout to the operator. Politicians and the news media have so poisoned the public against the "evil, corrupt, and greedy" businessman, that I doubt a fair trial is possible.

 

[brokeflyer]

the debate comes down to "what is required". The FAA can REQUIRE and operator to have a SIC regardless of what the plane is certified for. It will be added to the opspecs. Guess what, now you have a qualified SIC logging the time.

If not, then the debate from the lawyers is WHO required the second pilot. Will the FAA back the victim because they asked for "another pilot" or another "qualified pilot"?

Go be a check airman, then you can put any Comm/multi over there and fly pax, cause your doing training now.

 

[RaginMav]

How could this be proved? There are risks with both options. This angle has probably been covered by some greedy little lawyer.
Slam dunk, I doubt it.

In a civil suit, it wouldn't have to be proven, a jury just has to determine what is reasonable, or determine if the operator was negligent. This is miles away from proving anything!!! I fully believe the plaintiff would have NO problem convincing a jury that a single pilot operation of a KA is not in accordance with the highest of industry standards. And as a result... successful lawsuit.

And it's not just '121 guys' who are unwilling to fly single pilot. Those who defend single pilot operations so feverently are often in deep denial or their true feelings on the subject, or just don't know any better.

 

[ultrarunner]

In a civil suit, it wouldn't have to be proven, a jury just has to determine what is reasonable, or determine if the operator was negligent.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and offer that as litigious as a nation we are, this has been tested. And I suspect there is civil-case law that will show this exact argument has been offered by the plaintiffs.

How about some legal brainiac on here post the case law, and we can end this thread!

 

[RaginMav]

touché! Hopefully somebody can put this one to rest!

 

[SERPICO]

In a civil suit, it wouldn't have to be proven, a jury just has to determine what is reasonable, or determine if the operator was negligent. This is miles away from proving anything!!! I fully believe the plaintiff would have NO problem convincing a jury that a single pilot operation of a KA is not in accordance with the highest of industry standards. And as a result... successful lawsuit.

And it's not just '121 guys' who are unwilling to fly single pilot. Those who defend single pilot operations so feverently are often in deep denial or their true feelings on the subject, or just don't know any better.

Horsesh!t !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for your last little paragraph, don't talk to me about denial, I lost a close friend last night. If anyone here actually has "real" experience with single pilot Ops please add the thread. It's not about defending anything, it's about capability and personal limitations. If pilots are unwilling to fly single pilot Ops, then they have no business doing it, like yourself.
Don't know any better, more like, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[SERPICO]

One more thing,
next time your on the side of the road bleeding by a car wreck and BK-117 lands lands to save your butt, are going to ask for a second pilot? No, you will be kissing the butt of the only pilot onbaord.
How many EMS accidents have taken place in recent years, many. Are any of these ending up in courtrooms?
It's a dangerous profession sometimes, no second pilot can change that.

 

[kingairyahoo]

lol...still crackin up over here

In a civil suit, it wouldn't have to be proven, a jury just has to determine what is reasonable, or determine if the operator was negligent. This is miles away from proving anything!!! I fully believe the plaintiff would have NO problem convincing a jury that a single pilot operation of a KA is not in accordance with the highest of industry standards. And as a result... successful lawsuit.

And it's not just '121 guys' who are unwilling to fly single pilot. Those who defend single pilot operations so feverently are often in deep denial or their true feelings on the subject, or just don't know any better.

so...the fact that the FAA certified the King Air series as single pilot carries no weight, does it? the fact that these guys go to FlightSafety twice a year for single pilot checkrides means just as little, nor does the fact that they must successfully complete a single pilot line check with an FAA representative...i know, i know...means squat

...and IM the one in denial :laugh:

my point is only thus...just because you see a single pilot climb out of a king air on that hot summer day dont assume crap like this...

An operator who commits to a bonified two-pilot operation probably is willing to commit to other safety initiatives such as strict limitations on duty time, field length, wx restrictions, etc. and those who don't probably never will.

you think panties are in a wad now...just wait til i bring up the Premier operators out there buzzing around FL410 at .80 mach and ...GASP...single pilot

 

[Snakum]

I would argue that a very low time pilot in the right seat of a king air reduces safety rather than increases it. I felt like I was having to fly for both of us and flight instruct at the same time.

Then you either had the wrong people in the right-hand seat or ... ummm ... the wrong person in the left-hand seat. Possibly a combination of the two?

 

[Snakum]

I should clarify my reply ...

When I made the leap from Skyhawks straight to king Airs I studied the POH like I expected a written exam. I learned the limitations and the normal and abnormal procedures. And my mentor - the CP - spent hours going over turbine ops, balanced field, high altitude ops, etc. ... he would create scenarios in-flight on empty legs to test my knowledge or reaction ... tests inflight on required ROD or ROC to meet restrictions, fuel useage and fuel remaining, etc. ... and he'd spend an hour or so after every flight going over what I did wrong or inefficiently. And he ran a two pilot cockpit by the book - weight calculations and looking up the numbers for each TO and landing, full detailed TO and Approach briefs every time, etc.

And when we had a REAL emergency one day it ran right by the book. I didn't freak out, I found the appropriate checklist, ran it, made the appropriate calls, and it was essentially a nonevent.

In my opinion, even in the absence of a formal training program for FOs they can be an excellent resource if it's the right person, and if the Captains are willing to put in a little time and effort. Yeah ... it's like flight instruction for you guys, I'm sure. But isn't it wise to put a little effort in and train the right seater properly? If the company makes you carry one along, why not use him or her? You have the opportunity to mold/shape/educate a newbie pilot. Why just sit back and complain about it? Why not be part of the solution, so when a real problem arises they are an asset and not a liability?