Stefan,

Setting aside for the moment charged phrases like
'trust' and 'put your life in his hands'

Do you think the government or the insurance company
does a better job of protecting the customer?

In my experience it has been the insurance companies.
They
get the profits and guide flying through there rates
at a level of detail that I can't see any government
accomplishing as well.
I get customers for flying specifically on my doorstep
because their insurer said 'get some spin training
in a XYZ' or
'x number of hours in high L/D glass' etc.

Same for towpilots. The requirements I've seen from
insurers are 5 times what the FAA minimums are, and
then go from there in detail depending on the type
of aircraft used (Pawnee, 235, C-182, etc.)

Absolute statements about the responsibility of government
to protect customers and shine truth and provide the
impenetrable shield of absolute safety on all within
its bounds are certainly lofty ideals.

But in the end the insurers do a far better practical
job of tracking and guiding the nuances of pilots,
locations, and aircraft to provide a practical level
of safety.

The best question right before a ride as a passenger
isn't
about the pilot's ratings or accident record or hours
or
time in type. The best question to evaluate the safety

of a flight is to ask 'how much are you paying for
insurance?'
If the number is astronomical, then take a ride elsewhere...

The actuaries have spoken...

At 21:00 21 April 2005, Stefan wrote:
M B wrote:

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably

No. The whole idea of the commercial rating is to protect
the customer.
A commercial rating basically says: You can trust this
pilot and put
your life in his hands.

Stefan

Mark J. Boyd