> The core of what makes a good pilot isn’t stick and rudder skills; it’s good decision making and risk management.
At best, this is only half of the story. What separates GA operations from airline operations in terms of safety is much more involved than that:
- GA (Part 91) flight hours are not recorded so safety data can only be estimated
- Part 91 incidents follow much less scrutiny than part 121 or part 135 incidents
- Part 91 lacks consistent checklists/flows and rigorous training for many particular aircraft
- Passenger airlines in the US (Part 121) have
- pilots that go through rigorous training and check rides on a schedule
- chief pilots that oversee operations
- chief pilots that continuously refine procedures
- data collection and monitoring for many variables of flight
eg: exceeding an accepted bank angle while under manual flight control
- ... and so much more that part 91 lacks
One safety factor in a lot of small GA planes is that pilots can often lose all power (engine, electrical, etc) and still fly and land their aircraft. Fly by wire removes that ability. Not being able to competently fly the plane coordinated also removes that ability.
The question I think you are not addressing is: there has been a lot of effort to do exactly what you are doing. What sets your approach apart from those efforts?