Ahh the good old safety issue. Don't they just love the thought of increased safety.
Don't know about you but safety in aircraft less than 9 seats for our company is pretty important too. We don't want to loose our pilots/passenger's and business either.
I don't know how I would cope knowing that something we did/neglected caused the loss of lives/workmates/friends, isn't that what keeps everyone in this industry sharp.
Working in remote aviation all our Op's have an increased level of safety just because of the remoteness and changeability of the environment.
This means we have company imposed requirements far above the category of flight. This is part of due diligence for all of the above reasons.
The regulator looks at safety through the eyes of a policeman and usually it is black and white and perceived. That's were the problems start.
I have worked in a few different industries and at the moment moral in this industry is at it's lowest, that I have ever felt in any industry. I feel this is when safety will start to become an issue,because moral starts to drop people start not to care as much.
Trying to keep everyone upbeat and positive, is very hard at the moment in Aviation. The problem starts at the top and filters down right to the bottom infecting all with a don't give a s**t mentality. That's really not very good for safety.
Sorry slight drift, perceived safety is just that. The travelling public don't really care if we are RPT or Charter all they care is that we are licenced. In all our years in this industry, we have never had a client ask if we were RPT or Charter doing the flight IFR or VFR that is all industry perceptions. All they care about is, are we licenced and insured.
If we are licenced and our pilot looks older than 15, then they are happy as that in itself is enough to make them feel that we are not dragging some bloke out the pub that may or may not be sober to fly them, some where in a plane, that may have been airworthy in the past few years at some time.
There has to be a line in the sand that gives trust to the travelling public that they can board an aircraft and arrive safely at their destination. The public understand the bigger the aircraft the higher the skill level required to operate.
I also believe every industry needs a policeman. We however also need a regulator/policeman with direction and common sense that understands the industry, that has the industry's best needs at heart as well.
The comment to HL of go to RPT shows how much the top end of the regulator just doesn't understand the industry they lead.
The last two letters to operators one saying go RPT and get exemptions and then the tactical withdrawal saying to all operators we weren't trying to say that with that letter, really we meant to say go apply for RPT and if your safety isn't up to that standard because we haven't worked out what the standard really is, we may or may not give you an exemption.
Seems to me one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
Part 135 scares me a bit. I don't know how remote and regional GA will survive with the extra cost of implementation and continued compliance. Only a certain amount of blood you can get out of a stone. We are already experiencing resistance, to price increases for the rapidly rising fuel costs. We cannot keep rising the hourly rate as soon as we do we see the monthly hours decline and our business with it. The attitude of just pass the cost on doesn't always work.
The other Question Part 135 and air transport rises, is a line pilot asked me the other day, will they increase the eligibility hours for newbies? It will be RPT so under the current rules he wouldn't even get a start with us. Where will newbies get a start in this industry. Will all operators have to start their own sudo cadet ships and spend more time ICUS with a newbie at another huge expense or will all training orgs have to extend the training time to cover the so called higher level of skills required for us to take a per seat charge?