This aircraft is experimental. It was designed as an IMAX platform to film the amazon.
There is no limitation on how many seats you can put in this aircraft. As long as the aircraft is within its weight limits, and the CG is within its limits, I don't see what the beef is.
The FAA oversight on operators in this country has NOT led to a safer environment for flyers. As a matter of fact, if you look at the statistics, you Are MUCH more likely to be injured or killed in a 135 aircraft as you are in a 91 operated craft.
The main goal of the FAA in the USA is to make sure that YOU are liable, and not them...for anything, and everything associated with operating an aircraft.
As for the gentleman that put 7 people in a 172.... If you'd been involved in an accident, or even an incident, it would have cost you DEARLY. If you were not the owner of the aircraft in question, you would be the owner after an accident, as you would have had to pay for it out of your pocket, along with years of litigation had anyone else been injured or killed...if you were the PIC...you would have faced an onslaught of intervention by the FAA....personally, I'd just as soon keep them at bay by just doing what's, legal, and most of all...what is SAFE.
Very well written and expressed point. I live with the 135 nightmare as a single PIC single pilot operator of a late model jet aircraft. We have an impeccable safety record and it has nothing to do with the 60 lbs of paper that sit in my nose compartment. Using FSI to fulfill the recurrent PIC requirements for instance...each and every year the FAA makes ME certify the very instructors that they certified to certify me???? WTF????...
There should be a SINGLE syllabus for 135, 121 operators that would pertain to ALL aircraft that your currency covers....But no....that's just too simple.
