SPIFR is not inherently dangerous relative to what??
Certainly not as dangerous as bloodshot VFR, having worked for a number of years where it was quite legal, carrying out an air transport operation, to blat across Cook Strait at 500ft in crappy weather sitting behind one engine, piston and turbine, then SPIFR and single engine IFR at 5,000ft was certainly a lot safer.
Compared to a Part 91 operation where it is quite legal to do two return trips to the Chathams from Wellington, SPIFR no Auto Pilot required, in a day, some 10 hours flying and then an ILS
to minimums at Wellington, not quite so safe, the chances of error slipping in and not being corrected is quite high.
Compared to a well trained two pilot crew in a well equipped aircraft it certainly is more dangerous, or to put it better more exposed to risk.
If an operator cannot provide themselves with modern equipment to carry out an air transport operation, with the minimum of risk to the punters, then they should not be granted an AOC. In this day and age to grant an AOC to a company to carry out scheduled air transport operations in FAR part 23 aircraft, VFR only is beyond belief, but it has happened.
The object of the exercise is to provide Pax with least risk transport, not a game for enthusiastic amateurs.
Prospector
Last edited by prospector; 9th Feb 2005 at 00:27.