Looking for a 2nd 337

[JeffAxel]

David, the 337 should be one of the safest planes out there, but the experience with it has been different. Pilots don't take it seriously enough. One thing I have learned is the thing that is the biggest contributor to safety is regular recurrent training. The Cirrus had a really awful record, then they got serious about owner training and it improved. Same with the MU2, and not only required initial raining, but annual recurrent training as well. If twin Cessna owners, including 337 owners did serious annual recurrent training I am betting their accident rate would decline as well. Everyone should want to do so, in the MU2 it is a requirement. So if you want to be an MU2 pilot, it is part of the commitment. It should be part of the commitment for all planes in my opinion. Insurance companies are requiring it more and more as time goes on, and for good reason.

[mshac]

Originally Posted by JeffAxel

It should be part of the commitment for all planes in my opinion. Insurance companies are requiring it more and more as time goes on, and for good reason.

Not be negative, but I hold several type ratings, and have owned and flown MANY piston twins. I've never been asked by any insurance company to get annual "school" on any piston aircraft.

Did you know that when introduced, the Skymaster could be flown single pilot, no passengers allowed, on a SEL land rating? THEY DIDN'T EVEN REQUIRE A MULTI RATING (There was no centerline thrust limitation back then).

So to go from NO TRAINING REQUIRED to ANNUAL SCHOOL is quite the stretch IMHO.

I can't see any reason for annual school in a Skymaster. Just too simple of an airplane, with no complex systems, except arguably the pressurization system, and you can get a high-altitude endorsement for that if it pleases your underwriter.

I would reject any insurance offer that required annual school on a 337. Total waste of money IMHO. But I'm old school...and still alive after 1000's and 1000's of hours aloft.

This kind of "nanny" mentality is killing aviation, and many other industries as well. At this rate, underwriters will want annual school on your C150 - Pilots and Owners have to push back against this nonsense! Maybe rather than requiring annual school, the underwriters could offer a discount for it, sort of like Defensive Driving.

Sure, go to annual school all day for your King Air or MU2 or Citation, but as far as your piston poppers - just fly 'em baby!

Stay current, and if you aren't, then go flying with an instructor or another experienced pilot until you're solid with the airplane.

[JeffAxel]

I think your idea of offering a discount for annual training is a good one. When FlightSafety had a 210 simulator, I went there annually to take their training. Not required, but my plane was a family transportation device and I wanted to lessen the pilot induced risk . Training does that. You could argue about the 'nanny" state and requiring it, but there is plenty of evidence that annual recurrent training results in safer flying, for ANY airplane and ANY pilot. Staying current is important. How many pilots take regular training sessions with an instructor? Not enough in my opinion and the accidents I read about support this. I am going to San Diego this week. Just to brush up, took three flights with a local instructor who also flies an MU2 to get in some IFR practice in actual conditions in the past 3 weeks just to be sure I am where I need to be. It was fun, I learned a few things and feel better about my upcoming trip. No one likes to have areas they need to work on pointed out to them, but they are areas that need improvement! Pressurized piston twins including the P337 have lousy safety records and as I said earlier, pilots don't take them seriously enough. The worst thing you can have in a plane is a pilot who thinks everything is "safe". It isn't and we owe it to our passengers to prepare for things that might lead to "not safe". Any incentive that leads to keeping current and/or more training is a good thing in my opinion.