Question for part 135/121 pilots

[201er]

I recently took a fuel-reimbursement class for PALS and the main point of the class was that there are fewer accidents in commercial aviation and we need to strive to adopt those practices to mission flights.

 

My question to professional pilots who fly 121/135 operations is how do you contend with part 91 operations in your personal Mooney? Do you feel that your professional decision making and safety carries over to your private operations? How and why?

 

What aspects of commercial flying have you brought back to private operations that make you safer? If you could pick only a single safety aspect of commercial flying that can greatly improve GA safety record, what would that be?

[BigTex]

Wow... What a great question. I always thought it was a combination of hours, procedures and maintenance but can't wait to hear others response.

[Dave Marten]

Good questions. From the military test pilot perspective my profession has profoundly influenced by GA (part 91) flying.

 

how do you contend with part 91 operations in your personal Mooney?

- I apply the same discipline to part 91 ops as I do with all my flying. Why? The stakes are just as high - my ass and reputation is on the line. Whether its at 160KIAS in a Mooney or 650KIAS+ in full AB. Aviation, by its nature, is unforgiving and leaves little room for carelessness and lack of judgement.

 

Do you feel that your professional decision making and safety carries over to your private operations? How and why?

- Now you're getting to the sole of the matter. Decision making. Part 91 allows more freedom by design, but what many pilots don't realize the responsibility for safe operations rests solely with the PIC. 121/135/military/test flying etc all operate within more rigid systems. Rules, regs, company policy, etc are in place to assist the PIC with his decision making, which in many ways help make the decision for him. Larger the professional operation the more checks and balances in place. 

 

- I realize that part 91 can be some of the most dangerous flying I've done. (what? your a combat aviator, test pilot and 91 is dangerous?). Let me explain. Part 91 I'm 'outside the system' on my own. Freedom! But with freedom comes personal responsibility. So I'm very conservative flying my Mooney since not only my ass is on board but in many cases also my wife and daughters. By conservative I mean I fly within my airplane (and my limits) realizing that I don't have to reach my destination on time, but I must ensure I bring the flight to a safe conclusion. Decision making and risk management. Failing to know your limits, fly within the rules, and apply solid decision making are the weakest areas of part 91 ops.  A big part of that is failing to understand what it really means to be PIC. The beauty of part 91 is YOU (the PIC) shoulder more of the burden than any other category of operation.

 

What aspects of commercial flying have you brought back to private operations that make you safer? If you could pick only a single safety aspect of commercial flying that can greatly improve GA safety record, what would that be?

 

- Again, decision making and risk management. Key enablers to those are training, experience, knowing your aircraft systems and capabilities, and seriously considering the potential risks of your planned mission while working to minimize those risks. Make a GO/NO-GO decision on the ground and then continually use the tools at your disposal, as PIC, to re-evaluate that decision.

 

Professional pilots approach all their flying with the same rigor, discipline, and respect. As a wise, old J-3 pilot once told me. "Just because this old airplane is slow never take it for granted and let your guard down cause she's just fast enough to kill you". Your most valuable tool as a pilot are your decision making skills.

[WardHolbrook]

That is a great question, but I don't think I'd hold out Part 135 flying as the gold standard in aviation safety. Some will suggest its the airline dispatcher and the ubber restrictive Part 121 (and Part 135) rules and regulations, the airline's op specs and their Boeing or Airbus equipment. The Part 91 corporate pilots have none of that to support them and there are relatively few BBJs in the corporate fleet and yet, year after year, they run neck and neck with the major airlines when it come to overall safety record. Some years the airlines  come out on top, other years it’s the Part 91 Corporate guys who take the prize. I believe in both cases, it's the experience, the training, and the discipline – call it the professional approach - together with having adequate equipment for the task at hand. 

As far as equipment goes, a pilot of that caliber will know when it’s safe to fly and when it's best to pull the plug. As professionals, we get paid the big $$$ to say no – but you won’t last very long in this career if you say no when it wasn’t necessary or didn’t when it was. It does not matter whether you’re flying turbine or piston, single or multi, FIKI or whatever. You adapt. A turbo FIKI equipped Mooney properly flown by an experienced, well trained pilot can safely handle a very high percentage of what an airliner can handle – it is done every single day. But, like I said earlier, it absolutely requires appropriate equipment, adequate training, an experienced pilot (there really is a difference between 1000 hours of experience and one hour of experience repeated 1000 times) and finally the discipline to “stay between the lines” of aircraft performance and regulations. It takes a healthy commitment and for many GA pilots, it will require a total paradigm shift. Far too many GA pilots approach the whole issue of training and currency from the perspective of "What is the absolute minimum I have to do to be legal?" It will always be difficult or impossible for those guys to check three out of those four boxes.

[BigTex]

Also, Part 121/135 folks have all but eliminated the two biggest killers in GA and that's VFR into IMC and Maintenance Induced Failures.

[201er]

Also, Part 121/135 folks have all but eliminated the two biggest killers in GA and that's VFR into IMC and Maintenance Induced Failures.

That simply isn't true. All mechanical accounts for 10% of GA fatalities, and vfr into imc accounts for 5%. Based on 2009 stats, of 233 fatal accidents, 24 were mechanical and 12 were vfr into imc. 147 were deemed pilot error. 111 of those fatal accidents involved a stall (60 in the landing phase). In other words 48% of GA fatalities are stall related! (Some of you should think again before criticizing AOA indicators).

 

Based on the same report, if you exclude crop dusting, there are practically no fatal accidents in commercial GA. What are they doing right that we are doing wrong? Why do they tend not to stall but we do? 

 

BTW the answer may not have so much to do with hours and ratings cause when ATP and Commercial pilots get behind the wheel of a private GA aircraft, they perform by only a few percent safer than the inexperienced private guy. What's that all about? What's the secret to commercial safety then? Does it really come down to company rules?

[1964-M20E]

I’m strictly part 91 private pilot and my 0.02.

Equipment, the bigger the plane the more equipment you have i.e. radar, flight management systems, CO-PILOT etc. Yes I put the co-pilot as extra equipment we do not have in small private GA it is not required nor is it practical but the co-pilot can help you avoid a lot of bad stuff.

I think this also brings up the other thread on stall training. I see very few airlines flying a traditional pattern at an airport they are generally vectored straight in eliminating the possibility of a stall on turn to final. Like mentioned above the corporate structure also helps them make the right decisions.

I think GA’s biggest problem is decision making, pride and hey guys watch this. Then you have experience and time in the cockpit. I know myself when I am flying longer cross countries >140NM often and over a short period I feel more confident and proficient than if I fly fewer little fun hops around the city.

Sometimes we just make the wrong decision and the cost is high. Sometimes we can make the wrong decision get lucky and go on hopefully to learn from it.

[Marauder]

There are a number of dynamics that differentiate part 91 from 121/135 operators. The commercial operators have a structure that we don't (and one that I certainly don't want either). There are enough regulations. And even if there were more, you can't regulate stupid.

 

We are not professional pilots (not speaking for all), nor do we maintain our airplanes to those standards (exceptions exist). For most, what we do is a hobby, away to avoid driving (for both personal and work travel) and/or a way to spend thousands on something we love to do. Unfortunately, the activity can have a high degree of risk and as John points out above, you make a wrong decision, the cost is high. 

 

Where I think GA struggles is maintaining what I call the 3 Cs. Most pilots will able to achieve and maintain the first C (Currency). And I say most because I am guessing some are looking in their logbooks and counting to see if they are current for IFR flights. The second is C is competency. Just because you are current doesn't mean you are competent. Case in point; ME! After upgrading my panel from VOR/ILS hardware, I certainly was not competent to do LPV approaches to minimums using the new GPS hardware I bought!

 

And the final C is confidence. And this is a problem area. Usually because the pilot has too much confidence in himself or herself and/or their equipment and ends up doing something stupid. Too little confidence can also be a problem in situations where a pilot does not make the right decisions because they are flying with pressure (get home itis) or they defer their responsibilities to others (think a more experienced confident pilot who is with them).

 

I have said this before on this forum, we need to self regulate. If we don't others will feel compelled to do so on our behalf. When was the last time you told a pilot they were unsafe? For the record, I did on Monday. A guy gave his position on entry to the pattern that was no where near to where he said he was. I have no problem people pointing out things to me (oookay, just a little ).

 

Another area is recurrent training. I make it a point to fly with a CFII every few months just to see if I picked up any bad habits and to brush up on some dormant skills (I'm sure glad I dumped that ADF ).

 

Unfortunately, too often pilots take flying like driving a car. It isn't. And for me, it is the allure that keeps me engaged with it. Always more to learn and skills to master.

[Jeff_S]

Speaking of the three (or four, in my story) C's of personal flying, I was at an FAA-Wings training seminar at Flight Safety in Atlanta a few years ago. I often kick myself for going to these things because most of the time there are a handful of older dudes (and yes, almost always dudes, very few dudettes attend) who hog all the conversation and show off how much they know. But I digress. In this instance, there was a quiet and very thoughtful professional pilot of many years, and he brought up what he called the "4 C's" of personal flying, relating to one's general experience level.

 

The first is Cautious.

Then Competent.

Then Confident.

And finally, Complacent.

 

It's this last stage that I think does in the most GA pilots, or even more, the professional pilots who are flying GA. How many times do you have to hear about a 12,000 hour pilot flying into a mountainside at night outside Las Vegas in an otherwise perfectly good airplane? Too many other stories like this when  you read the NTSB reports. I'm not blameless here by any stretch, as I often catch myself doing things I wouldn't have dreamed of when starting out. Sometimes these are legitimate actions because I am more familiar with the risks and have thought them through. Sometimes they're just dumb, and I file them away as "boy was I lucky that time."  So far, very few of these latter, but I try to keep a watch out for them.

[thinwing]

I think the single thing part 121/135 drivers have over us part 91 is the snd pilot on board.Crew resource is a huge safety increase done properly...not like that avianca 727 crash (ran out of fuel)on approach to kennedy years ago.I agree with ward that a turbo/fiki Mooney equipment wise allows for many more safe dispatches but it still boils down to a single pilot acting as his own dispatcher/PIC/COpilot/maintance officer etc...

[AndyFromCB]

The three keys to part 121/135 safety are, in order of importance: Co-Pilot, Dispatcher and Maintenance Director. We don't have any of that. Plus a second engine capable of continued climb over obstacles. Many a flight I would have taken with a co-pilot where I simply waited on the ground for weather to clear up. Low IMC, busy airspace, amended clearances, minor equipment failures in combination I bet have killed quite a few single pilot where as with a co-pilot they would have been non events. Another reason why I do not break my 800/2 rule, ever.

[Corvus]

I fly part 135 helicopter ops for the oil and gas industry, In our IFR program we maintain the same safety statistics as the major airlines, and I agree with what is being said by the professionals so far. I love the 1000 hours versus 1 hour flown 1000 times analogy.

We have a lot of overlap with fixed wing part 121/135 ops as far as operations go. I think we also have a lot of overlap with the GA pilots as far as resources available, which can be limited at best. While we do have the cockpit resources; We have to deal with a pretty dynamic environment as far as weather and often compromised landing locations with lots of obstructions, the remote locations mean little help from ATC, and we are often one way fuel. (we do have alternates though}...just to name a few things. Think Bush flying mixed with Flying a business jet.

The question of what is different between a commercial operation as opposed to what can a GA guy do are sort of two different animals. .

here is my 2 cents on what a GA pilot can do to model their flying after a commercial operator, keep in mind i am generalizing here for the sake of shall we say confirmation, that you are already doing things that many professional operators demand from their pilots.

 

1. Read the regs that apply to part 135/121 and apply those rules to your own flying at a minimum. taking off Zero Zero is legal part 91, but for part 135 we are limited to what we can come down to, if those limits are the minimum for a two pilot crew with more resources, that might be a more realistic starting point to work up from as far as personal minimums flying SPIFR.

 

2. Make everything you do into a procedural operation, and back it up with a checklist, in other words, fly the way you would with the FAA onboard. For critical items, read it and do the item line by line as you go. I find the POH checklist to be pitiful crude guidance, which puts GA pilots in pinch where they have to make up for the inadequacies on thier own. I made my own checklist to fill in a lot of the blanks in my flight regime, it is modeled after the ones I use at work and the ones you would find at flight safety or CAE. Checklists are the cornerstone of good SOP's and accidents are often attributed to departure from SOP's. Always use checklists, as in have it out and be reading it, dont just mentally reference it...they really shine when the weather forecast is bust, and you are like everyone else trying to get down the approach on the ground, and you are tired after a long flight. Because the radio will be busy, the ride will be bumpy and those are the times when you forget to properly set something up correctly, sometimes its the little things that can be the most insidious. here is mine for reference, it is tabbed so that you can just put your thumb on the tab and flip to the page.

http://mooneyspace.com/gallery/image/34171-/

 

3. Strive to manage workload and be ahead of the aircraft- Set things up well in advance, and do it when your workload is lower. If you start cramming in cockpit chores that you could have had done, you lose situational awareness. which is often attributed the start of the chain of events that lead to an accident. the farther ahead you can be, generally the better.

 

4. fly conservatively and make conservative decisions- It may be a common misconception that professional pilots are the sky equivalent to race car drivers, capable of routinely pushing thier machine to the limits all in the name of profits, but I think the average guy would be surprised at how conservative and methodical things are on a professional flight deck. Weather radar is used to avoid things by a healthy margin, not to see how close you can get. Use what resources you have accordingly. the best philosophy is avoidance of bad weather. The most conservative decision is the best one. If you have to fly at night

 

5. Practice flying the same way everytime, all the way.- when you go out and practice traffic patterns or approaches, they should be dead standard. Fly the full approach at the speed you would fly it were real. A lot of guys rush around, bouncing from approach to approach for practice, this leads to cutting corners and an inaccurate mental picture of how the approach should go.

 

6. It is asinine to fly airplanes without an Instrument rating- Probably not a real common problem here on mooneyspace given the mission profile of the plane, I would expect the majority here have instrument ratings but if you dont have one, before you do anything else, go out and get one and commit to using it frequently. Having it "just in case" and then only getting recurrent on an IPC ride is unwise. it is very dangerous, because a pilot can think they can rely on it to get them out of a jam, and in all reality they are in no position to be using it at that point, they are perishable skills. again probably more advise for the guys who fly brand C and P on the weekends to go get a hamburger, but all the same, it applies.  

 

7 Train and practice- as mentioned currency is big. Basic airman-ship is important, don't let the autopilot do everything for you, handfly often, those skills are also very perishable. Fly conservatively in the traffic pattern, and hold yourself to a high standard. Fly with a CFI every now and then who you trust. You may have developed some little habit pattern that needs correcting. Good airmanship leads to being able to do what you should be doing in terms of maintaining situational awareness, by being "outside of the airplane in VFR weather and being able to plan well ahead in IFR weather, becuase managing the aircraft is second nature.

[Alan Fox]

• Part 135 is riddled with procedures , and the feds are all over you , the currency standards are unbelievably rigid , and for the most part an ATP is the price of admission.....Aside from bernullis principle , there are no similarities.......

[OR75]

the US part 91 pilot enjoys a lot of freedom and tend to use the full operational envelope that is given to him. Sometimes venturing outside of that envelope. 

 

The employer of the part 121/135 pilot imposes a much smaller envelope and a second pilot is most of the time there to be a cop. just in case..     

[bnicolette]

I fly for a part 91 corporate flight department and am a captain on a Falcon 900B.  I also do part time work for a part 135 flight department and am a captain on a Lear 31A/Lear 35A.

 

I'll keep it short as a lot of great points have already been made so I'll just add to them instead of repeating what was already said.

 

Do you feel that your professional decision making and safety carries over to your private operations? How and why?

 

Absolutely.  First of all, we are in the simulator every six months reviewing instrument procedures and at the same time dealing with multiple abnormals and emergencies in the equipment we fly.  So it is inevitable that we are going to be more proficient.  In addition we are out working the system and making decisions almost daily.  Exercising that thought process in our “9 to 5” job will undoubtedly transfer into our personal flying.

 

I would recommend that folks do more recurrent training with an instructor that will put your through the paces both in equipment failures and instrument proficiency.

 

If you could pick only a single safety aspect of commercial flying that can greatly improve GA safety record, what would that be?

 

There always has to be an “out” or “plan B & C”.  There is nothing left to chance.  If there is then you have just done yourself and your passengers a huge disservice. 

[Corvus]

 

• Part 135 is riddled with procedures , and the feds are all over you , the currency standards are unbelievably rigid , and for the most part an ATP is the price of admission.....Aside from bernullis principle , there are no similarities.......

 

 

 

the US part 91 pilot enjoys a lot of freedom and tend to use the full operational envelope that is given to him. Sometimes venturing outside of that envelope. 

 

The employer of the part 121/135 pilot imposes a much smaller envelope and a second pilot is most of the time there to be a cop. just in case..

haha, good one

[Mooneymite]

All thoughtful replies.

To me, a huge factor is the involvement of "someone else" in flight ops and maintenance decisions. It makes the pilot view each situation as others see it, not just his own view which may be skewed by personal factors like "get-home-itis".

The presence of another pilot, dispatcher, weather guru, a maintenance coordinator goes beyond the expertise they have. It makes the decision making process more formal and rational.

[201er]

So if what you guys are saying is true, that the primary advantages of commercial ops are having multiple pilots onboard, better machinery, and additional people involved, then us private GA guys don't stand a chance of improving the safety record? Obviously we can't be expanding our crew and such. So is the GA safety record doomed to remain as abysmal as it is?

 

Or is there stuff we can learn from what it takes 2 people to do, in order for us to do that on our own?

[OR75]

question is:

how do you improve the decision making of a pilot ( decision to take the right amount of fuel, to not go, to divert, ....) ?

most if not all pilots are capable of operating an airplane without bending metal too much

[bnicolette]

With the type of commercial aviation that I am involved in there is nobody else involved once the plane is handed over to me.  The part 135 ops I have been involved with come with "green" copilots who generally have less than 1000 hours.  So I can't say that a 2 person crew has helped me in the part 135 arena.  Now with the corporate part 91 flight department I have always had an equally competent Co-Captain to fly with and that surely makes it "easier" but not necessarily safer.  I have never had the opportunity to work with a "support" ground crew (dispatcher, staff meteorologist, etc), everything I have been involved with has been up to me or us (crew) so I can't speak to the benefits of them.

 

Again Mike, IMO, recurrent training, proficiency and proper planning are key ingredients to any safe operation.  If you can't look your passengers in the eyes and tell them that no matter what happens during this flight that their safety (survivability) is assured, then the trip should be a no go.  You have looked at every realistic scenario for the route and conditions to be flown and concluded that it can be done with nothing to chance (meaning you have a plan for multiple contingencies that have a safe outcome) then you are operating professionally and safely. 

 

Just one of many accidents that with the proper planning and a known "out" that could've been avoided.  I was flying this night and was scheduled to leave Toronto and take pax to PHL and then to PIT.  I was given the trip about 2pm in the afternoon and it was scheduled to be in PHL around 7pm then onto PIT.  I looked at the forecast and immediately declined the leg to PHL as it was forecasting to be close to minimums and possibility of below minimums and nothing close to PHL was forecasting any better.

 

 

http://delaware.newszap.com/centraldelaware/119571-70/faa-finds-fuel-emergency-before-fatal-dover-plane-crash

[Marauder]

So if what you guys are saying is true, that the primary advantages of commercial ops are having multiple pilots onboard, better machinery, and additional people involved, then us private GA guys don't stand a chance of improving the safety record? Obviously we can't be expanding our crew and such. So is the GA safety record doomed to remain as abysmal as it is? Or is there stuff we can learn from what it takes 2 people to do, in order for us to do that on our own?

Mike -- if you want to improve the safety record to airline level, yes, that is what it would take. Just be prepared to pay for a 100 hour inspection on a regular basis (heck it might be per dispatch for all I know), file your flight plan, have it prepared by a dispatcher (your cost) and for you to pay for a SIC to sit in the dummy seat (at least I don't have that many pilot friends who will fly with me everytime I want to go somewhere). I don't want the freedoms we enjoy as part 91 to be messed with. We have enough regulations on us already. We are required to be medically fit, periodically reviewed (BFRs) and need to comply with a number of flight restrictions (SFRA, TFRs, etc). For those of us who have been flying a while, I don't want to see any more erosion of our freedoms. What the fundamental thing you are asking is whether or not single pilot GA is safe and can it be made safer? It can be, but it requires us to be proactive about managing our risks. When you analyze the accident reports (http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/ARA1201.pdf) - I haven't looked for the 2011 report, you will see a trend. Check out page 49. Even more interesting, check out the section afterwards on instructional flight. Just because another pilot is on board doesn't mean bad things don't happen. For me, I try to stack the odds in my favor: 1) I spare no expense on maintaining my plane. If there are squaks, they get fixed. I do preventative maintenance before a failure. Expensive, yes, but so are funeral expenses and the proverbial lawsuits. 2) I routinely fly with an instructor to correct bad habits I picked up and to enlighten me to new things I that may have less familiarity with (like my new GPS). 3) I live the 3 Cs (Currency, Competency and Confidence) - mentioned in a previous post. Like everything else in this world, there are inherent risks. How many people die in bathtub accidents each year? The problem with GA is too often those risks are underestimated or in worst case, disregarded and the result is an accident.

[Marauder]

Just one of many accidents that with the proper planning and a known "out" that could've been avoided. I was flying this night and was scheduled to leave Toronto and take pax to PHL and then to PIT. I was given the trip about 2pm in the afternoon and it was scheduled to be in PHL around 7pm then onto PIT. I looked at the forecast and immediately declined the leg to PHL as it was forecasting to be close to minimums and possibility of below minimums and nothing close to PHL was forecasting any better. http://delaware.newszap.com/centraldelaware/119571-70/faa-finds-fuel-emergency-before-fatal-dover-plane-crash

This accident was preventable. The weather was miserable here during his flight. Not only did he continue on in bad weather, he never left the area! Take a look at his flight plan. He went to Summit, couldn't get in, went to Salisbury Maryland, missed and ran out of fuel on his way to Dover. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4975S

[Corvus]

If it is worth any clarification, a second pilot is typically required to help manage the aircraft, there are a lot of cockpit chores on a big aircraft. Is a second pilot part of the the decision making? Absolutely. But as was pointed out just because someone is there doesn't improve safety by virtue of their presence. The rest of the system of dispatchers and maintenance personal are as much in place to help expedite operations as they are to make it safer. At the end of the day it's the pilot(s) that make all of the safety of flight decisions.

[AndyFromCB]

If it is worth any clarification, a second pilot is typically required to help manage the aircraft, there are a lot of cockpit chores on a big aircraft. Is a second pilot part of the the decision making? Absolutely. But as was pointed out just because someone is there doesn't improve safety by virtue of their presence. The rest of the system of dispatchers and maintenance personal are as much in place to help expedite operations as they are to make it safer. At the end of the day it's the pilot(s) that make all of the safety of flight decisions.

 

The truly scary accidents do not happen on a nice, warm day without a cloud in sight for 300 miles and 5knot wind. They happen in challenging weather and equipment failure problems. Having a second person there, who is a pilot makes all the difference in the world then. One person can concentrate on flying while the other person can concentrate on trouble shooting, route finding, etc, etc, etc.

 

I am generally not one to panic, or develop a tunnel vision. Had engine problems 3 times in my 14 years of flying, put the airplane down every time. But I know what tunnel vision looks and feels like. I've been dumb enough to climb up a mountain without a rope to a point of no ability to come back down without rappelling and to a point where no reasonable person would continue without protection. I just sat there for a few minutes and literally mentally "froze" for a few minutes. I can see how a single pilot literally flips out after a second missed approach or continues into a thunderstorm or icing without a second person to help along. A second pilot a lot of times allows you to focus on a decision making. Hard to "think" and fly at the same time. Another reason why I consider IFR without an autopilot to be suicidal. I know many here fly IFR by hand and so do I, for practice, but I would never launch into the soup without uncle Otto. 

[Marauder]

If it is worth any clarification, a second pilot is typically required to help manage the aircraft, there are a lot of cockpit chores on a big aircraft. Is a second pilot part of the the decision making? Absolutely. But as was pointed out just because someone is there doesn't improve safety by virtue of their presence. The rest of the system of dispatchers and maintenance personal are as much in place to help expedite operations as they are to make it safer. At the end of the day it's the pilot(s) that make all of the safety of flight decisions. The truly scary accidents do not happen on a nice, warm day without a cloud in sight for 300 miles and 5knot wind. They happen in challenging weather and equipment failure problems. Having a second person there, who is a pilot makes all the difference in the world then. One person can concentrate on flying while the other person can concentrate on trouble shooting, route finding, etc, etc, etc. I am generally not one to panic, or develop a tunnel vision. Had engine problems 3 times in my 14 years of flying, put the airplane down every time. But I know what tunnel vision looks and feels like. I've been dumb enough to climb up a mountain without a rope to a point of no ability to come back down without rappelling and to a point where no reasonable person would continue without protection. I just sat there for a few minutes and literally mentally "froze" for a few minutes. I can see how a single pilot literally flips out after a second missed approach or continues into a thunderstorm or icing without a second person to help along. A second pilot a lot of times allows you to focus on a decision making. Hard to "think" and fly at the same time. Another reason why I consider IFR without an autopilot to be suicidal. I know many here fly IFR by hand and so do I, for practice, but I would never launch into the soup without uncle Otto.

You bring up a good point about autopilots. That was the first upgrade to my airplane after I received my IFR rating. Prior to the AP, I realized that at times the single pilot IFR workload went up substantially and being able to "delegate" the basic task of keeping the plane level and at altitude helped a lot. Some pilots have a real stigma about using the AP and I never understood that. Granted relegating versus delegating is the issue and I agree that relegating your flying to the AP will over time erode your skills. But not to incorporate the AP into your CRM strategy is just as bad.