I used to think the same thing.

My Brother in Law is a very seasoned pilot, so is my dad.

I asked them about this one day. Like "guys, how do you go from flying around in little Citation 5s to flying around in massive jumbo jets?"

They were confused about my question.

Why?

Because flying isn't flying, it's systems. You learn the GPS, you learn the autopilot, you learn the radio, and after that, you follow the checklist.

You're just there to press the buttons, the rest of it is planned.

They always joke that, "if you're flying IFR (instrument flight rating, meaning that every single one of your movements in controlled by the tower), you have to get clearance from control before you can scratch your balls".

I still don't believe them, but just thought I'd chime in.

As a couple of counter-stories, an instructor I once had asked another instructor how long he'd last in a high-performance twin that he hadn't checked out in.

"About two minutes" was the answer

Another _very_ seasoned instructor I know confided in me that he was concerned that a private student with a very expensive airplane wanted highly-technical training and he didn't feel like he was up for it. Now this is coming from a guy who is in the top ten or twenty instructors worldwide.

I get the gist of what they're saying -- but I think there's a bit of malarky in there somewhere. Airlines pay big bucks to get pilots current on gear just a little different than what they've already flown. There's good reasons for this.

Flying your seventh type of airplane is sorta the same, but it's nowhere near like using your seventh version of a word processor.

The distinction there is an issue of risk analysis. Airlines pay big bucks because every minor goof is a potential disaster. There are huge stakes, both personal and financial resting on every decision in the cockpit. As a result, a "culture of safety" exists in pretty much all of aviation. This is a good thing. A community of pilots trained to cross all their t's and dot all their i's as a matter of instinct is better for everyone.

But that doesn't mean that taking off solo in a plane you know only from manuals is always going to result in an accident, either. Even DUI drivers "usually" get where they're going without incident.

Reading the article (yeah, with a little salt applied), this is a guy who faces down armed resistance. So the appropriate question of risk isn't "is an accident possible?", it's "Is an accident more likely than the other risks assumed?". There, I think he's on much firmer ground.

He may also be bringing in crews that have checked-out in the equipment. The article kind of implies that as part of one of the stories.

Risk analysis covers a lot of ground. John Denver lost his life because of a fuel valve that was in an awkward spot. People have flown perfectly good jet airplanes into the sides of mountains on bright, sunny, clear days while screwing around with the flight computer. More people than you can shake a stick at have gotten killed by simply running out of gas.

Not a lot of guys want to go to jail over an airplane, but people dent up airframes every day. Aviation is a great sport, hobby, and profession, but it is also very unforgiving. If I had to pick one, I'd take the angry guys over unfamiliar complex systems, especially in hard weather.

You could argue the point either way, but since he's still alive he's obviously played the odds well. I wonder, however, if all super-repo men are of the same caliber.