On Jul 11, 12:00 pm, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
Also, not the category includes all levels, and that would include SP
Citations and other bizjets that are single pilot/owner flown.

Yes, which is why the difference is so dramatic here. But in the Nall
report those Citations are excluded, and the difference is still
huge. Self-flown business flyers are still safer than recreational
flyers even when flying pistons.

I would like to know how they manage to distinguish business trips from
personal flights.

Self-reporting, I assume. There is no incentive to misreport, as
there is nothing illegal or insurance-affecting about it.

I know plenty of people doing self-flown business flying without one.
I used to do it all the time. Most eventually break down and get the
instrument rating eventually - after flying more hours than the
average recreation-only pilot flies in a lifetime.

How many folks flew for years as pleasure pilots before using aircraft for
business. I'd sat quite a few.

In my experience, none. Those willing to use a personal aircraft for
business usually start right away - because they can.

I think the real issue is risk management.
Wholeheartedly agree. Under any conditions of weather, equipment, anything,
better pilots handle risks better. As most business pilots are _probably_
entrepreneaurs, might they have a better grasp of RM?

Less than half of the ones I know are entrepreneurs. Most are
professional employees. But your larger point - that the business
flyers have a better grasp of RM - is true in my experience.

I suggest that something similar is at work in aviation. The problem
is not that most private pilots are not instrument rated - it is that
they are too conservative.

Ummm...no? I think they take risks not understanding all the potential
factors involved.

Well, sort of. They don't realize that they are being too
conservative, are failing to develop their skills, and are thus adding
more risk through failure to develop their skills then they avoid by
reducing exposure.

If they're as conservative as you imply, they'd (pretty much) never fly,
PERIOD.

Most private pilots fly less than 25 hours a year.

On the other hand, knowing there's an elevated risk for that flight, proper
precautions are taken. I also tend to think that business people (of the fly
yourself variety) have a better grasp of this than the average Joe/Betty.

Agree. But there is a difference between proper prior planning (which
allows you to experience the difficult conditions, learn, and survive
the experience) and not going (which merely allows you to survive, but
not learn anything)

I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves

I meant more conservative but more risky. Sorry.

How about this: the point of Risk Management is managing risk BEFORE the
fact, not after the stuff has hit the fan.

But really, it's both. It is said that the superior pilot uses his
superior judgment to avoid situations that will require the use of his
superior skills, and this is true MOST of the time. But eventually,
the **** will hit the fan no matter how careful you are - and then, if
you have not developed the skill, you are done. If you avoid all
exposure to risky situations, you never develop the skill.

Tomorrow, I'm going to fly myself on a business trip. I KNOW the
weather is going to be pretty crappy, and I will be going into a busy
primary Class B airport during the busy time. And I think I'll be
safer than the guy who is very careful and won't fly in bad weather.
And the statistics seem to agree with me.

Most likely, you're going to do a sh&tl*!d of planning before hand, as as
things unfold, not just go barrel off into the wild blue yonder.

I will do (actually, did - the trip was yesterday) relatively little
planning. I fly in crappy weather, and into busy airports,
routinely. I've been doing it for years, and I don't get many
surprises anymore. But when I started, I did a whole lot of
planning. I never managed to cover EVERY eventuality, but I covered
enough to survive and learn. The point is not to launch unprepared -
don't go looking for adventure, it will find you soon enough. And I'm
not against instrument ratings - that would be silly, given that I'm
an ATP and CFII. I just don't think it's the important factor - I
think that willingness to fly more often in a broader range of
conditions is much more important.

Michael