Originally Posted by stinsonjr
I would think that the "bad apples" would economically weed themselves out over time. How do these operators continue to insure their airplanes/cargo? If the insurance carriers would move to offer incentives for 135 operations that are "good", then those carriers could potentially 1) lower rates for the same flying yet maintain profit margins or 2) keep rates the same and increase margins due to lower insurance cost.
It isn't about any "bad" companies. The problem is with the culture of risk that is associated with cargo and bush style flying. It is important to accept a higher level of risk in order to get the mission done however sometimes pilots can become seduced by the thrills or can become greedy about flight time.
The risk to insurance companies is low since there are no passengers and rarely any ground losses. Most of these operators have a difficult time justifying their own existence. In the modern highway and Internet world the advantage of air cargo on a local level is becoming harder to sell. If they were to aggressively push safety the resulting loss of business might just do them in.
In the end it is up to the PIC. They are the ones who applied for the job and accepted the flight. Everyone knows that the planes are older and have a higher failure rate. The price of newer planes would probably mean the end of the business. If you were to ask most cargo pilots I am sure that everyone would say that they are appreciative of the opportunity in spite of the risks.
SkyHigh