Universal Jet and other S. Florida "charter" outfits... interesting

[BentOver]

http://www.examiner.com/article/for...chanic-speaks-out-about-gulfstream-g-iv-crash


I remember a discussion here about the safety of regular 135 charter vs. fractional safety cultures....


IMO, there most likely is NOT a significant difference in pilot abilities, but the emphasis on safety and the means ($$) to achieve a safer operation definitely support the arguement that fractionals are indeed a safer way to go. Add in the pilots of fractionals are not "pressured" as much tends to lead to an overall safer operation.

 

[OPECJet]

Not uncommon knowledge.

 

[X-rated]

I'm not sure the issue is pt 135 vs 91K. If anything, pt 135 rules are more restrictive. What you seem to be alluding to is that larger better capitalized companies with a strong emphasis on systems and procedures tend to be safer. I would agree with that.

However, pointing out an accident at a well known bottom feeder from a geographic area known to have many substandard operators, does not in anyway help prove your point. If you want to make an argument about fractionals being safer than Charter, you need to compare yourself to EJM, Tag, Jet Aviation, XOJET, Gamma, Private Air and other such serious players. Also, without question, there are many small operators across the country that operate to the highest standards despite their size. Similarly, I have no doubt, there are several "shared ownership" operations that are are poorly run bottom feeders. The issue is not Fractional vs Charter, but professional vs not.

Your argument is simply self serving, and lacks logical foundation.

 

[BentOver]

I agree, bottom feeders are bottom feeders...

But the average charter customer, who simply has their assistant book them a flight, and then said operator is simply a broker who utilizes a place like Universal Jet, doesn't necessarily know what they are getting into when they board an a/c .

My point is, besides buyer beware, is that with this new economy and all the talk of charter being an overall better value because there is no $$ committment etc, there will be an increased risk of getting stuck on a flight with a bottom feeder...

I agree there are many quality operators out there, but they can't accomplish all the flights. So somewhere there is a bottom feeder flying around, unsafe, with passengers who thought they booked from a reputable company only to have it brokered off.

As far as logical foundation.. Compare the fatalities in the 91/135 world over the last decade.

 

[gret]

"As far as logical foundation.. Compare the fatalities in the 91/135 world over the last decade."

Do you have this data so we can study it?

 

[BentOver]

How many fractional accidents that have caused loss of life?

Ask the same question about straight 135 outfits....

Then ask what was the contributing cause of the accidents...

Two readily come to mind... Ebersol's crash that cost him his son.. Don't have the report in front of me, but cutting corners comes to mind..

Then there is the building at the end of the runway in TEB... IS the new brick still off color?

Then read about Universal Jets last 4 accidents over the last decade... Surely the mid air could have happened to anybody etc.. But 4 life taking accidents since about 2000. It is rather astonishing.

But again my point is that the buyer has to be aware of who they are chartering, and who the broker is using....

 

[cldsfr79]

How many fractional accidents that have caused loss of life?

Ask the same question about straight 135 outfits....

Then ask what was the contributing cause of the accidents...

Two readily come to mind... Ebersol's crash that cost him his son.. Don't have the report in front of me, but cutting corners comes to mind..

Then there is the building at the end of the runway in TEB... IS the new brick still off color?

Then read about Universal Jets last 4 accidents over the last decade... Surely the mid air could have happened to anybody etc.. But 4 life taking accidents since about 2000. It is rather astonishing.

But again my point is that the buyer has to be aware of who they are chartering, and who the broker is using....

As far as I know there has been Zero deaths in fractional flying, and fractional flying dates back to the 1960s with the advent of Executive Jet, which later changed it's name to NetJets. (They changed their name because every time their competitor (135 or private) would wipe out, the news would unknowingly state "an executive jet has crashed" so they had to distance themselves from that name.)

As someone pointed out, they stated to stop "comparing bottom feeders to top level charter companies". The problem with this is that these bottom level companies, with their fancy advertising and naive audience to aviation, make themselves out to be as good or even better than the best.
There advertisement: Why pay for a Hawker 800 when you can pay the same amount for our shinny (25 year old, highly used...but with that new airplane smell) G3? Their smoke and mirrors under cuts the safety and service that the real players provide.

 

[osy007]

I don't think that you can really compare, safety wise, a small charter outfit to a larger competitor. I don't want to go the route of listing the differences in order to save an hour. The only one that I want to delve into is the co-pilots age.
Twenty four and sitting in the right seat of a G4. That is pretty impressive. I hope this doesn't sound cruel but I am going to guess that he was the lowest bidder for that spot. That's typical for small charter operators which is my biggest gripe.
A lot of small time charter operators are hiring low time inexperienced people because they are in the drivers seat now.

I'm going to take an educated guess from what I read in the article and say that pilot landed long and did not perform a go around..My question is, did the co-pilot have the experience to say "GO AROUND"!

 

[osy007]

One other thing...

Why was the pilot servicing the aircraft's tires. Poor guys has to do his own mx and ends up getting a rim shot through his skull..That's bad luck!

 

[gret]

AIN Digs into Part 135 Accident Data

When aviation people speak of Part 135 operations, many of us naturally assume a business jet or at least turboprop is involved. So when the NTSB released 2011 accident data a few weeks ago (“Total accidents involving on-demand Part 135 operations climbed from 31 in 2010 to 50 in 2011, while fatal accidents rose from six to 16 and fatalities rose from 17 to 41.”), the numbers appeared quite unambiguously to refer to turbine-powered airplanes. The story behind those numbers, however, is not quite as clear as the one that evolved when AIN spent time digging into the raw data used by the NTSB. The spreadsheet actually showed something quite different from what many people might have expected. Of the 50 accidents and 41 fatalities involving Part 135 aircraft, only four actually involved turbine-powered airplanes: a Learjet 35A, an Embraer EMB-500 Phenom, a Swearingen SA227 Metroliner and a Cessna 208 Caravan. One of those, the Caravan accident, resulted in a single fatality. Eight turbine-powered helicopter accidents, however, were responsible for 15 fatal injuries. The remainder of the Part 135 accidents involved piston-powered aircraft, including 15 twins: six Piper Navajos, four twin Cessnas, two twin-Beech 18s, two Beech Barons and a Grumman G44. The 25 other Part 135 accidents involved single-engine piston aircraft. Note: The predominance of any particular airplane or helicopter should not be interpreted to mean that those aircraft are unsafe, merely that those machines are used more often in charter than others.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-accidents-fatalities-jump-first-nine-months-