Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1561 times:
The number of airplanes in the air is expected to rise considerably if the use of small jets like the Eclipse spreads. Then, there will be more pilots with less experience out there, and a bigger probability of mid-air collisions due to pilot error - like the one involving the 737-800 from Gol Airlines and the Legacy business jet in Brazil a couple of days ago.
The risk may increase the greatest in the United States as a large number of people may be able to afford a $1.5 million jet. Consider how many private pilots out there would be interested in forking out $375k and going into a shared jet purchase with three friends.
We constantly live with the risk of disaster in transportation as tens of thousands of people die every year in road accidents. So it is expected that more airplanes in the air will generate more accidents. But I feel there will be very little tolerance for mid-air collisions where the fault is on the private pilot and the loss of life is an entire plane load.
Not to mention the possibility of intentionally causing an accident in a suicide mission.
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3014 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
People aren't going to just jump in these aircraft and go blasting off into the wild blue. Most people that have that kind of money will not be willing to risk their assets and will have the aircraft insured accordingly. The insurance companies often require many, many hours before allowing an owner to solo even something as "simple" as a Bonanza. Cessna 340s and other complex cabin class twins often require a couple hundred hours with an instructor. Also, these jets will have the latest in collision avoidance like TAWS, TCAS, and other systems required for flight in RVSM just like the big guys.
These jets will not be nearly as revolutionary as everybody thinks they will be. There have been propeller-driven aircraft that fit this niche for years and a number of light jets like the CJ and Premier (while not as affordable) exist and you can pick up a used Citation for the price of the new VLJs. VLJs are not nearly as flexable, are restricted in range due to lower useful load, and will likely not cruise at altitudes where the airlines are (the D-Jet will fly around the high 20s). While the eclipse has a large number of aircraft on order, the design is unproven, and it most of these orders are only options and not firm.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8936 posts, RR: 65 Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
In addition to Pilotpip's excellent observations, it's important to bear in mind that the vast majority of VLJ pilots will be flying for 135 operations, and will be trained and certified accordingly.
Futurecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 1): (the D-Jet will fly around the high 20s).
Which means the pilot will be instrument rated to get up to cruise altitude and be under ATC control which will provide spacing for the VLJ's.
Now, instrument rated pilots arn't automatically better then people with just their private license, but I like to believe they hold themselves to higher standards and while flying in these higher altitudes will be vigilant to watch for other a/c.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1479 times:
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 1): People aren't going to just jump in these aircraft and go blasting off into the wild blue.
I never said they would. But the average pilot of the average microjet will have far less experience than the average commercial pilot.
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 1): Also, these jets will have the latest in collision avoidance like TAWS, TCAS, and other systems required for flight in RVSM just like the big guys.
These systems do not prevent collisions, as it was just shown by an accident involving brand new aircraft.
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 1): There have been propeller-driven aircraft that fit this niche for years and a number of light jets like the CJ and Premier (while not as affordable) exist and you can pick up a used Citation for the price of the new VLJs.
The average wealthy person has an aversion to propellers. There will be many more takers for a jet aircraft in the same price range.
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1479 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 2): In addition to Pilotpip's excellent observations, it's important to bear in mind that the vast majority of VLJ pilots will be flying for 135 operations, and will be trained and certified accordingly.
2H4
I wouldn't agree that the vast majority of them would be flying 135. Maybe the majority of the eclipse and even that is a stretch.
Bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 4924 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1456 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 5): I wouldn't agree that the vast majority of them would be flying 135. Maybe the majority of the eclipse and even that is a stretch
Perhaps...but most will be operating IFR, with separation as part of the IFR system.
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 4): These systems do not prevent collisions, as it was just shown by an accident involving brand new aircraft.
No system prevents collisions, but these systems make collisions far more unlikely.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3014 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1389 times:
Even if it is part 91, it's often costs less for the owner to put a second pilot in the right seat than it is to insure and train for single pilot ops.
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 4): I never said they would. But the average pilot of the average microjet will have far less experience than the average commercial pilot.
The average pilot will need thousands of hours, and more than likely at least a commercial rating to qualify for these aircraft. The FAA doesn't regulate much any more, the insurance companies do.
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 4): The average wealthy person has an aversion to propellers. There will be many more takers for a jet aircraft in the same price range.
The average wealthy person may have an adversion to it however that's not the person to consider. The average pilot is the one to consider, and most of these have done their training in piston aircraft. Most of these aircraft will not be owner-flown so this is a non-issue. Rich people that want access to a jet will realize that it's much more convienient to use a fractional service becuase you don't have to maintain the aircraft, train the crew, or anything. You make a call, and the plane is waiting for you. The company deals with the details. Fractionals have proven this for the last 15 years. These companies know costs less to put two pilots in the plane and have already stated that they will do this (dayjets comes to mind).
I instruct at a flight school that is one of the leaders in G-1000 training. We're factory authorized trainers for Diamond, Cessna, Beech, Columbia, and are also working on a similiar program for the Avedyne. Diamond is working closely with us on the D-jet and have kept close tabs on the VLJ movement. I can tell you that the costs will not be as low as advertised, and these aircraft are very limited in capability when compared to a turboprop that is priced in the same range. For somebody not familiar with the industry, these jets sound like they will make the sky dark because so many will be flying around but the complexity, and additional costs will likely only attract those that are looking to upgrade from a cabin class twin and most pilots of those maintain very high training standards due to insurance requirements.
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1377 times:
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 8): Even if it is part 91, it's often costs less for the owner to put a second pilot in the right seat than it is to insure and train for single pilot ops.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8936 posts, RR: 65 Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1356 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 4): These systems do not prevent collisions, as it was just shown by an accident involving brand new aircraft.
As noted, it's not about preventing collisions entirely....it's about minimizing the risk, and the systems noted do so extremely well.
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 5): I wouldn't agree that the vast majority of them would be flying 135. Maybe the majority of the eclipse and even that is a stretch.
"It is significant that a relatively few air-taxi operators are responsible for about half of the approximately 3,000 VLJ orders placed among all manufacturers."
- AOPA magazine June 2005
I suppose I shouldn't have used the term "vast", but from the orders I've read about since that article was written, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the simple majority of VLJs are destined for air-taxi operators.
I'll gladly stand corrected if someone finds a recent, accurate breakdown of current orders, though.
Bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 4924 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1341 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10): I suppose I shouldn't have used the term "vast", but from the orders I've read about since that article was written, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the simple majority of VLJs are destined for air-taxi operators.
The bottom line is that those VLJs that fly all day every day, presumably the main topic of the thread, will most likely be dual-pilot commercial 135 operations. Owner/Operators generally do not fly every day...whereas the whole point of 'air taxi' is to do exactly that.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8936 posts, RR: 65 Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Bond007 (Reply 11): Owner/Operators generally do not fly every day...whereas the whole point of 'air taxi' is to do exactly that.
Exactly. And while the overall number of owner/operators up in the flight levels may increase, many (and perhaps most) of them will be transitioning from complex piston and turboprop twins. If a pilot can handle a complex twin by him or herself in weather, I'd say the transition to a simpler, more intuitive, and more informative platform will be a straightforward one...especially considering the thorough (and mandatory) training they'll be receiving. In fact, even allowing for the less-forgiving environment of the higher-altitude flight levels, I bet we'll see a decline in accidents and incidents among the owner/operator group.
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1314 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 12): I'd say the transition to a simpler, more intuitive, and more informative platform will be a straightforward one.
I would agree with this statement, as the most of the VLJ designs take the thinking out of most of the extra work that makes them more complicated and have speeds which are similar to that of the current high performance twins out there
Sponsor Message: 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3014 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
