Overly restrictive business flying requirements.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
insurance carrier.

since when do insurance carriers make "reasonable" policies wrt
flying?


They are basically saying that the University is not to have its employees
traveling by air in a manner that has a vastly greater fatal accident rate
(more than 10x) than commercial flying.



Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial air.

which doesn't make this one reasonable.

See above.

--
Bob Noel

Mike Rapoport wrote:


They are basically saying that the University is not to have its employees
traveling by air in a manner that has a vastly greater fatal accident rate
(more than 10x) than commercial flying.


Absolutely. If you consider private pilots it's probably
even worse than the overall GA accident rate.

"Ted Huffmire" wrote in message ...


Absolutely. If you consider private pilots it's probably
even worse than the overall GA accident rate.

I don't think private pilots alone make much of a difference. I've never
heard of an insurer giving a hoot over private versus commercial certificates.
Instrument ratings and pilot time seem to be the dominating yardsticks for
risk.

In article et, "Mike
Rapoport" wrote:

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the
University's
insurance carrier.

since when do insurance carriers make "reasonable" policies wrt
flying?

They are basically saying that the University is not to have its
employees
traveling by air in a manner that has a vastly greater fatal accident
rate
(more than 10x) than commercial flying.

Given that the University will allow travel by car or train, both
of which also have a vastly greater fatal accident rate than
commercial flying, my question remains open.


Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial
air.

which doesn't make this one reasonable.

See above.

ditto.


Another way to look at it: If commercial flying sets the standard,
than why is use of a car, bus, or train allowed but not non-commercial
flying? Is the University policy to use the lowest cost, most
expeditious (sp?), or safest method of travel?

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote:
Given that the University will allow travel by car or train, both
of which also have a vastly greater fatal accident rate than
commercial flying, my question remains open.

There is no alternative, in many cases, to travel by car - it would be
impossible for the university to forbid it. That is not true for private
flying.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article et, "Mike
Rapoport" wrote:

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the
University's
insurance carrier.

since when do insurance carriers make "reasonable" policies wrt
flying?

They are basically saying that the University is not to have its
employees
traveling by air in a manner that has a vastly greater fatal accident
rate
(more than 10x) than commercial flying.

Given that the University will allow travel by car or train, both
of which also have a vastly greater fatal accident rate than
commercial flying, my question remains open.


Trains and cars are still over 10x safer than GA aircraft flown by
non-professional pilots.

Mike
MU-2

Bob Noel wrote:

Given that the University will allow travel by car or train, both
of which also have a vastly greater fatal accident rate than
commercial flying, my question remains open.

Hold it there. This brings up the debate of relative safety.
Statistically, travel by train has about the same safety record as
travel by commercial airlines in terms of fatalities per
passenger-mile. It is far safer than GA, or other non-scheduled
commercial air travel. Long distance buses are by far the safest mode of
all.

Looking at auto travel, the overall statistics show that it is something
like 10 times riskier than commercial airline travel, however, there are
refinements one should take into account.

In the case of commercial air travel, most accidents are during takeoff
and climbout, or during landing. That affects the statistics in that the
longer the trip, the safer air appears to be. Conversely, the shorter
the trip, the riskier it is to fly. Also, automobiles using interstate
highways are something like 4 times as safe as those driving on city
streets or secondary roads.

Therefore, since you wouldn't look to an airline for a 25 mile trip, and
you wouldn't likely drive on a transcontinental trip, you really have to
restrict the comparison to trips that are competitive between the two
options. If you only look at statistics for automobiles on interstates
compared to short airline trips, you will find that the risk is about
the same for trips of around 300 to 500 miles. Autos are safer for
shorter trips, and airlines for longer. If you look at non-scheduled
commercial service, or GA in comparison, you will find they are
substantially riskier.

The universities have learned the hard way that they are exposed to
substantial liability and risk if GA or commercial charters are used.
The university becomes the "deep pocket" without the insulation of a
large scheduled airline, when the lawyers are looking for someone to
sue. There have been a number of very public accidents involving their
sports teams, where the standards of the commercial operators were quite
poor. This includes everything from pilot experience and training,
checkrides, maintenance of equipment, through barebones
instrumentation.

Just recently there was a Kingair accident, which involved a U of
Oklahoma sports team, where a two person flight crew lost spatial
orientation within a minute after an AC power failure affected their
instruments, even though they had a working AI. Not something you would
expect from IFR-rated commercial pilots. Questions arose about
everything from pilot training and experience, aircraft maintenance,
cockpit resource management, and in general the university's policies on
charter travel.

The universities have reacted by establishing tight regulations for
traveling on any aircraft other than commercial airlines. Most large
companies have similar policies for exactly the same reasons.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54...
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
insurance carrier.

Not necessarily. Frequently it's the sign of an overly conservative risk management
department. Margy is forbidden from even mentioning Young Eagles to her students.
There's no insurance carrier involved, just a overly anal-retentive risk managment
department.

Sounds reasonable to me, given that their objective is to control the risk
to the University. Consider that once they turn you loose on approved
university business, even alone in a light single you have the capability of
bringing $50 million or more in litigation down on their head. I'd be damn
careful, too.

JG

"Wily Wapiti" wrote in message
om...
Hello.
I thought I'd bounce these off the group

(Wily Wapiti) wrote in message . com...
Hello.
I thought I'd bounce these off the group and see what people
think. These are the UniRegs at the University of Wyoming for flying
your own or rented plane on University business. I feel, as a
low-time private pilot that they are overly restrictive, but I thought
I'd see what the sage pelicans here thought.

Be happy you work for a govt institution. Every major company I've
come across is terrified of self-piloted GA (can you say liability),
and won't allow travel in that manner period.

Having said that, and at first glance, I thought the policy is overly
restrictive, especially the 100 hours min instrument time, plus the SE
night and SE IMC restriction. Then I remembered this was in reference
to Univ Wyoming. I suspect the latter two requirements are due to the
terrain of Wyoming. But let's not degenerate this thread into a SE vs
ME night/IMC thread...

-Nathan