SLFGuy wrote:
I have no dog in this race but until such time as someone shows a correlation between P2F pilots and aircraft accidents the authorities and airlines will maintain their position.
There's an old adage in aviation: safety is no accident. Meaning, it requires a concerted effort by an organisation involved in commercial air transportation on many levels to achieve it. It needs a positive, safety orientated culture throughout. The absence of accidents for a period of time does not automatically prove an operation is safe. The disregard of the social aspects of crew composition, the creeping corruption of selection criteria that gets people into their seats, the financial pressures crew members are facing which may blind their judgement in a critical situation, may not immediately lead to an increase in accidents, just as a decision by an airline not to follow checklists would probably not immediately lead to more accidents.
Would it be wise to allow this airline to proceed with such a plan and wait for a number of accidents to call it off, or doesn't something (experience, tradition, aviation history) already tell us what a bad idea this is?