Fully agree. Back in the instructor days I had more than one airline pilot and fighter pilot do their best to kill me in a bug smasher.

We are required to know our limitations, failure may result in serious injury or death.

CE

 

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.

 

Am I understanding you correctly: your jet is unsafe???

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Gold Star Post Otto. However, I think some types of flying are more dangerous than driving.

 

Clearly the ATR is unable to handle American ice. It is, however, perfectly capable of handling Finnish ice, as Finncomm operates them in you'd-better-believe-there's-icing-conditions without any difficulties...


True, although Garmin is adding features similar to those to their wonderscreens. (overkill)

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.