While it is not customary for us to post public challenges to alphabet groups or famous magazines, Seth Lubove's article caused such a stir amongst NBAA and NATA leaders alike that they issued statements to condemn his journalistic integrity. As a somewhat "outside the box" air charter melee of people, RSVPair has the luxury of offering to be the one who holds the hands of both parties (both Seth's hand and those of the flabbergasted NBAA and NATA) to try and help the public come to some resolution on the big question: Is Part 135 as bad as the media / stats / pundits say, or is it a problem of perception, bad apples and generally misinterpreted data?

Seth's article may have not had perfect samplings of data or referred to the subset of turbine Part 135 aircraft that we all focus so intently on, but the article caused critical minds to think - how dangerous is Part 135 and why is it so much more (on paper) accident prone?

This initial post was our first review of Seth's article. It now seems that the prudent thing to do would be to have some type of discussion around a common set of data rather than do the usual aviation / kindergarten mud slinging that not only makes us look like the 1st grade is too sophisticated, but actually stunts the growth of an industry that is trying to come into its own by comparing its data with the "big people" in Part 121 land.

So, here is our suggestion: If you have not already done so, click on the Extras page to sign up for the "Operators@RSVPair.com" list. If you are already on it.. submit your feelings to operators@rsvpair.com in order to share your opinion on the matter with all the Part 135 operators (and others) on the list. Be sure to provide some context to your email by filling out the subject line appropriately.

If you would like to add your name to the list of operators / companies that would like to see an independent study done, then please send an email to Adam Webster so he can submit it to NATA, NBAA and others so we can get cracking on this. The purpose of the study will be to get the NBAA and / or NATA to do something more effective than simply blast the credibility of writers and to defend their position with the data that reflects the actual vs. perceived risks of flying under Part 135.

This post was made by Adam Webster who really would like to put the great safety debate to bed, even it requires harmony between Forbes and NBAA.