Airline pilots dying in small airplane crashes
#31
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 461
It is a tragedy to loose a freind in a crash. I have lost several. My thoughts and prayers are with the family.
While I have never flown anyting bigger than a light jet, I can say I have found it very strange to go back into 172 type flying.
Just because I have safely landed a 172 in a 20kt plus crosswind in 1997 doesn't mean that I would be great at trying to do it now.
There are professional pilots flying single engines all over the world in professional conditions. I shouldn't commercially fly a tundra-tire Cessna185 into a riverbed in Alaska right now. Neither should that bush pilot fly into TEB on Monday at 9am in my Premier.
While I have never flown anyting bigger than a light jet, I can say I have found it very strange to go back into 172 type flying.
Just because I have safely landed a 172 in a 20kt plus crosswind in 1997 doesn't mean that I would be great at trying to do it now.
There are professional pilots flying single engines all over the world in professional conditions. I shouldn't commercially fly a tundra-tire Cessna185 into a riverbed in Alaska right now. Neither should that bush pilot fly into TEB on Monday at 9am in my Premier.
We are required to know our limitations, failure may result in serious injury or death.
CE
#32
In any event, small planes are not as safe/unsafe as airliners, there just aren't the safety margins. Look at certification. How many light twins can lose and engine and be guaranteed to fly out of it? How many planes have ETOPS level back ups? Radar, deicing, TCAS. EGPWS... the list goes on.
#33
Not inherently unsafe, but not as safe as staying away from either I don't make a point of flying around on a jet on my days off either.
In any event, small planes are not as safe/unsafe as airliners, there just aren't the safety margins. Look at certification. How many light twins can lose and engine and be guaranteed to fly out of it? How many planes have ETOPS level back ups? Radar, deicing, TCAS. EGPWS... the list goes on.
In any event, small planes are not as safe/unsafe as airliners, there just aren't the safety margins. Look at certification. How many light twins can lose and engine and be guaranteed to fly out of it? How many planes have ETOPS level back ups? Radar, deicing, TCAS. EGPWS... the list goes on.
No, there aren't the same safety margins flying a 172... but then a 172 wasn't intended to fly 350 days per year. Nor was it intended to fly in known icing (kinda like ATRs).
You are compairing rowboats to a cruise ship. If one is smart enough to take the row boat on small rivers and lakes, it will be fine, but taking across the pond is stupid. Know the limits of your craft and yourself and the trip will be reasonably safe.
#34
Now, Now, don't put words in my mouth. It is not as safe as staying home, but then again my divan can't get me to Florida when I need to go.
I don't think I was the one making that comparison. The rjsomeday was.
I don't think I was the one making that comparison. The rjsomeday was.
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,383
Well if you think about it, we are taking man made machines to 40,000', going 500 mph, and are relying on a pressure vessel not to explode with a stress fracture in the cabin somewhere.......I never understood the comparison between auto deaths, and airplane crashes. There are millions of cars on the road. Yeah, the odds are greater. But in an acft, when you break down, you can't just pull over at the next cloud.
#36
As a former ATR driver, I have to take offense to that statement. The ATR was and still is certified for known icing. It is not certified for severe icing; nor is any aircraft. The ATR was never dangerous in icing. If you are talking about the one icing event to judge the ATR on, remember that they were holding in severe icing with the flaps down. The CA was in the back talking to the flight attendant and the FO was listening to rock music on the ADF. Who was responsible for the crash: the ATR or the pilots?
#37
It sounds like people are trying to defend GA flying as safe. It is and isn't because it is all relative.
Driving is more dangerous than any kind of flying. The stats show us that.
Driving motor cycles is the most dangerous.
There are more GA accidents than commercial accidents. Due to pilots and aircraft. I believe VFR into IMC is still the leading cause of GA accidents.?
The stats show GA as "more dangerous" than airline flying because of many reasons. The pilots may be less experienced. The planes are not as reliable. They may have only one engine. The engine is a piston vs. turbine. The aircraft may not be as well equiped for certain conditions: icing, IFR, etc.
Now, GA planes are not dangerous, but they can be with the wrong pilot or flown in the wrong conditions. I don't fly small planes anymore due to the cost, not the risk. I miss them and wish I could fly them again.
Be safe. Have fun.
Driving is more dangerous than any kind of flying. The stats show us that.
Driving motor cycles is the most dangerous.
There are more GA accidents than commercial accidents. Due to pilots and aircraft. I believe VFR into IMC is still the leading cause of GA accidents.?
The stats show GA as "more dangerous" than airline flying because of many reasons. The pilots may be less experienced. The planes are not as reliable. They may have only one engine. The engine is a piston vs. turbine. The aircraft may not be as well equiped for certain conditions: icing, IFR, etc.
Now, GA planes are not dangerous, but they can be with the wrong pilot or flown in the wrong conditions. I don't fly small planes anymore due to the cost, not the risk. I miss them and wish I could fly them again.
Be safe. Have fun.
#38
Well if you think about it, we are taking man made machines to 40,000', going 500 mph, and are relying on a pressure vessel not to explode with a stress fracture in the cabin somewhere.......I never understood the comparison between auto deaths, and airplane crashes. There are millions of cars on the road. Yeah, the odds are greater. But in an acft, when you break down, you can't just pull over at the next cloud.
I'll take my chances on the airway. On the highway, your car doesn't have to break down. The other guy, who may be drunk, crosses the center line and hits you head on and kills you. You were a good driver and your car was in great condition, but you are still dead.
People don't die from cars breaking down.
#39
***
It sounds like people are trying to defend GA flying as safe. It is and isn't because it is all relative.
Driving is more dangerous than any kind of flying. The stats show us that.
Driving motor cycles is the most dangerous.
There are more GA accidents than commercial accidents. Due to pilots and aircraft. I believe VFR into IMC is still the leading cause of GA accidents.?
The stats show GA as "more dangerous" than airline flying because of many reasons. The pilots may be less experienced. The planes are not as reliable. They may have only one engine. The engine is a piston vs. turbine. The aircraft may not be as well equiped for certain conditions: icing, IFR, etc.
Now, GA planes are not dangerous, but they can be with the wrong pilot or flown in the wrong conditions. I don't fly small planes anymore due to the cost, not the risk. I miss them and wish I could fly them again.
Be safe. Have fun.
Driving is more dangerous than any kind of flying. The stats show us that.
Driving motor cycles is the most dangerous.
There are more GA accidents than commercial accidents. Due to pilots and aircraft. I believe VFR into IMC is still the leading cause of GA accidents.?
The stats show GA as "more dangerous" than airline flying because of many reasons. The pilots may be less experienced. The planes are not as reliable. They may have only one engine. The engine is a piston vs. turbine. The aircraft may not be as well equiped for certain conditions: icing, IFR, etc.
Now, GA planes are not dangerous, but they can be with the wrong pilot or flown in the wrong conditions. I don't fly small planes anymore due to the cost, not the risk. I miss them and wish I could fly them again.
Be safe. Have fun.
Last edited by GauleyPilot; 08-02-2008 at 06:09 AM.
#40
As a former ATR driver, I have to take offense to that statement. The ATR was and still is certified for known icing. It is not certified for severe icing; nor is any aircraft. The ATR was never dangerous in icing. If you are talking about the one icing event to judge the ATR on, remember that they were holding in severe icing with the flaps down. The CA was in the back talking to the flight attendant and the FO was listening to rock music on the ADF. Who was responsible for the crash: the ATR or the pilots?
In any event, small planes are not as safe/unsafe as airliners, there just aren't the safety margins. Look at certification. How many light twins can lose and engine and be guaranteed to fly out of it? How many planes have ETOPS level back ups? Radar, deicing, TCAS. EGPWS... the list goes on.
I still believe that it takes a different kind of mindset to fly a small airplane, and that they can, despite the lack of the margins, be operated safely. Light twins just have to be flown on profile.
Oh, and there *is* a twin that has pretty good single-engine performance and a strong (9G) airframe:
Unfortunately, it burns 30 gallons an hour and proceeds at a stately 150 knots on a good day.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post