I can understand the emotion, I flew with him a while back and he was a very good operator.
For all you clowns giving SPIFR a slating (for what it's worth I have operated extensively both SPIFR in NZ and now I'm a captain on multi-turbine airline ops in Europe) I reckon multi crew ops can indeed be a blessing when the other guy is competent, but I have on occasion found myself wishing for the relatively benign safety of my little SPIFR Seneca when I'm out and about in real weather and the FO is a newly checked to line, non-English-first-language, still learning the ropes individual who's still at the stage of making a complete balls up of the checklists and RT let alone the handling, and is basically so far behind the aircraft he needs a tow rope. Remember that multi crew aircraft are certified that way because they are deemed sufficiently fast & complex that they NEED two pilots to get the job done. If I had the choice of sending my wife and kids on an SPIFR flight with a completely reputable outfit like Christian Aviation, or on one of these more interesting European airlines that have a money making sideshow selling buy-a-type-rating-and-line-training packages to wet behind the ears CPLs, I know what I'd choose.
What utter garbage but I'll reply anyway, your anology that there are times that SP is better than multi crew leads me to believe you're one of those people who refuses to wear a safety belt when out driving. In case there is a one in a million chance that in doing so you'll be thrown clear of the car in any accident even though this scenario occurs in under four percent of accidents (the occupant gets thrown through an open or smashed window). If your F/O is newly checked to line and still learning the ropes and out of his depth then there is a problem with the way your company operates and the level of competency it requires of your F/O, you getting misty eyed and running back to SPIFR isn't going to fix it nor does it have any relevance to this thread.
Your statement that two crew aircraft are certified that way because they need it is also garbage. The workload flying single pilot, no autopilot on a nonprecision approach into a dark hole on a crap night far exceeds anything required in a larger two crew operation. In fact you're not two crew, you've got a proper autopilot that should be able to manage the flightpath laterally and vertically. It's considerably more difficult to monitor in SPIFR when you're at the coalface.
What have European Airlines got to do with it? I said Air Nelson Vs. a SPIFR operator in NZ of which Christian would be one of the best. Two operators with experience and aircraft that meet all their air ops requirements flying on the same route.
If I'd started a thread on here asking why we continue with SPIFR in this day and age with it's high accident rate there would be about 50 replies asking if an accident just occurred.
The public want a degree of safety and the SPIFR record isn't getting any better, CAA should set the bar up accordingly and the general public should pay to get on that aircraft accordingly. If that's 20% 40% or 100% more to get an aircraft that meets all the requirements then so be it.
threedogtired, If you want to travel SPIFR and find the level of accidents acceptable to you and would be unhappy paying more to substantially reduce that accident risk then go ahead. Christian are a very good operator of that aircraft in that environment and I wouldn\'t recommend anyone else.
now is not an appropriate time to go engaging about statistical likelihoods of CFIT, pilot error, and unsafeness of SPIFR ops in general
When would be a good time to discuss the unsafeness of SPIFR Luke? Before then next one? After the last one? When it occurs with someone famous on board and ignites media attention?
The "good time to discuss it" has come and gone.