Jim Macklin wrote:

I still don't buy it that there is no other option, maybe in
1903-1928, maybe in the movies, but in the real world, there
is always the option to have the organ flown in rather than
you going to get it [a two way trip, long time] or even you
flying it in one way. You are not the only pilot, there are
at least two airports [or landing sites, roads and fields].
To save the child you have to survive and need a very high
probability of success and on time.

It is my scenario so I determine the options. I've never seen anyone so
completely miss the point. The point has nothing to do with organs, it
has everything to do with risk being a complex equation involving both
benefit and cost.


Now, consider this scenario, the only airplane in town, a 15
seat King Air 350 and you have flown a King Air 90. but are
not multiengine rated, let alone type rated in the 350. The
pilot of the 350 was captured by Muslim extremists and his
head was cut off. There are 25 allied troops and you in the
town. The rebels are about to attack.
1. Do you fly the airplane?

Well, I'd certainly TRY to fly it. Not sure if I could.


2. Do you take only 14 passengers or do you take off with
all 25 people crowded into the airplane. The King Air 350
will be inside the W&B with the mains full and the aux tanks
empty, maybe a little over gross if the troops take their
weapons and ammo.

Sure, I'd give it a shot unless I knew for certain that putting all 25
onboard would have a near certainty of a crash on takeoff.

What's your point?

Matt