Originally Posted by
Learflyer
If that's the case, how is it that my 135 (rather large and standardized one BTW) has larger safety margins than those 121 carriers you mentioned above? We sure as $hit don't even dispatch to severe icing.
Your 135 outfit is as large as United Airlines? It's scheduled? There's a difference between an on-demand outfit and one that's as expansive as the largest operator in the world, with far more scheduled departures and arrivals in a day than your company will see in a year.
No, mishaps are NOT inevitable, but yes, they do happen.
There's an idiotic and overused saying in the light airplane world that there are those who have made gear up landings, and those who will...and yet virtually never do we find gear up landings in professional cockpits; particularly airline cockpits. Is it possible? Of course it is, but given the method of operation and training, both possibility and opportunity are vastly diminished. Standardization and regular training and checking make a difference by orders of magnitude.
Severe icing, by definition, is icing which exceeds the ice protection capabilities of the aircraft.
If you've never been in a situation in which your destination weather was not as predicted, you haven't flown for long. We plan, we calculate, we update, and yet, despite the advances in prediction, reporting, monitoring, and observation, the weather on arrival is still very much what you see is what you get. The flight ahead made it in, and you don't. You fly over the field and see it clearly, yet visibility on approach is below minimums. Previous flight had good braking, but it's gone downhill due to temperature change, freezing rain, etc.
Mishaps are not inevitable. That they exist doesn't contradict that. It simply means they continue to happen and that more can be done, on a case by case basis, on every flight operation, to work toward reduction.
It can happen to you, too.