Single Engine Hard IFR

[seniorpumpkin]

[quote]you're seven times MORE likely to be injured in a small plane, than you are in a motor vehicle.

First of all sorry for getting off topic here. My last post was aimed at lightening up the mood, since my comment was challenged I feel an obligation to back it up.
WIDOW, I can respect your position on this matter, I gather that you have lost your husband to aviation. You have my deepest sympathies. I can understand that you may have become jaded towards aviation. However, I feel differently than you and so I decided to challenge your last post.
To be honest I thought it was preposterous to suggest that driving a car was less dangerous than flying. I did some research and found that the numbers were closer than I had anticipated.

The first web page I came across in my search was
http://birdhouse.org/blog/2007/08/19/death-by-numbers/
they crunched numbers by journey and found that:
Your chances of dying in a plane crash are approximately 1 in 20,000; chances of dying in an auto accident roughly 1 in 100.

Next I checked the Transport Canada page and crunched the numbers myself based on vehicle registrations. I don't know how accurate a picture of risk these numbers reflect but here are my results anyway:
Canadian registered automobiles in Canada in 2005: 18,515,000
accidents 151,975 fatalities 2925
Canadian registered aircraft in 2005: 30,830
accidents 244 fatalities 48
therefore:
chances of a car being in an accident are 1 in 122 (during2005)
chances of a plane being in an accident are 1 in 126
chances of a car killing someone: 1 in 6330
chances of a plane killing someone: 1 in 642

Transport Canada did mention that automobile accidents and fatalities are on the rise while airplane accidents and fatalities are declining.

So it would appear as though this is a difficult comparison. I like to think in terms of rationality. When you drive a car you are always surrounded by other big chunks of metal, moving pretty fast, often with drivers who are unaware/drunk/otherwise unfit, whereas in an airplane the nearest hard thing is usually at least two miles away and you have a pretty good chance of having a reliable driver who is well trained.
Sorry I couldn't come up with anything more conclusive.

[Northern Skies]

Boy the Internet sure is a shitty medium for discussing just about anything except boobies... Too easy to give the wrong impression in these threads.

I agree completely. I wasn't in on the single vs. twin discussion, but just saying that there are many survivable options in the bush that can be chosen through just a few extra seconds of time to survey the situation and maneuver the airplane.

[Doc]

This was never meant to be a "single vs. twin" discussion. Just that I think a single should have a higher departure minimum. I don't bemoan the fact that a Boeing 777 can auto land in pretty much WOXOF, with a CATIII approach, and my poor little King Air has to miss at anything less than 200 feet. This is a fact of life. I live with it. Some airplanes are more capable than others. Is the 777 driver better? Some may be. Some may not be. That's not my point. If a problem occurs at 200 feet, with pretty much zero vis, and you are in a single, you're pretty much screwed. All modern twins, flown inside their envelops will fly away one one engine. Some, better than others, but they at least have an option. I don't really care how good you think you are, or how much sunshine they've pumped up your ass at SimCom, you just are not going to make it. Neither are your passengers. But when I suggest something that would make you safer in your single, like a slightly higher departure limit, some of you react like I've remarked on how small your penis is? Now, you guys just keep quoting numbers on how bloody unlikely an engine failure is on a PC12, and how well you've been trained, but keep in mind....eventually this unthinkable mishap WILL occur.
And, I've left the building on the subject.

[Widow]

Any valid comparison between types of transportation accidents/fatalities would have to consider the #'s of persons who can travel in each vehicle. Such as comparing 10 passenger and under automobiles, with 10 passenger and under aircraft.

I am fairly certain that the numbers seniorpumpkin crunched would be a lot scarier with these things factored in.

And btw, I don't think I'm jaded towards flying. I am a smart passenger now. I know things most passengers do not, and will likely never know. I know some of the things to look for, and that keeps me safer. I'm fairly certain that in my pursuit of "spreading knowledge", I have helped to keep others safer as well, both within the aviation industry and as passengers.

I do not think single engine aircraft should be banned - but I do think that the chain of events in most accidents (especially fatalities) need to be addressed and answers found. If weather is a frequent cause, then the WHY of pushing weather needs a solution. If "old a/c" or faulty maintenance are common, then again WHY and what can be done? I've said it before and I say it again ... SATOPs provided real insight into the air taxi (read most dangerous aviation) sector. Those insights need to be acted on. Changing the way the statistics are published (i.e. flight schools no longer air taxi) hasn't fooled me. I don't believe things are safer than they were ten years ago.

[Snowgoose]

But when I suggest something that would make you safer in your single, like a slightly higher departure limit, some of you react like I've remarked on how small your penis is?

A higher departure minima is always safer. I don't disagree with you. Even for twins, tris, and quads it would be safer. At some point risks have to be mitigated or no one goes flying, ever. Flying is inherintly dangerous.

Oh, and you'll never catch me as a passenger on one, the way they're operated today...or any of my family members...or friends.

This is the statement that I don't care for. If you don't like an airplane, that's fine. If it ain't Boeing they ain't going, blah blah blah. That's their choice. When you say that you don't like the way a plane is operated, that's saying something about every flight crew.

I wish my first job was on a 747. Then I would have a lav, a couple stews, a great schedule, etc. plus 3 spare motors if one packs it in. That wasn't the case though. I flew the Pilatus long before I ever went to SimCom. Before and after I went there I felt safe. I read the PC-12 accident report from Labrador long before I stepped foot in one. They changed the chip detector. I probably won't descend if I get a light on in flight.

As you well know, I rarely, if ever, get offended. I don't know how you run your show, so don't make assumptions about how everyone else does. Last time I checked, no one goes to work planning to die.

[CID]

To wit, you're seven times MORE likely to be injured in a small plane, than you are in a motor vehicle.

That's probably true. Now put the focus back on commercial operators and that statement would change greatly. Ever wonder what the chances of crashing are when riding down the 401 with your 90 year old grandmother driving versus doing the same on a commercial transport bus?

We have to be careful not to suck in private operators in this discussion or twins that can't meet the air taxi IFR standards.

This discussion can't be raw "twin" versus "single". Stick to commercial ops and airplanes that can actually meet the standard.

[the_professor]

I do not think single engine aircraft should be banned - but I do think that the chain of events in most accidents (especially fatalities) need to be addressed and answers found. If weather is a frequent cause, then the WHY of pushing weather needs a solution. If "old a/c" or faulty maintenance are common, then again WHY and what can be done?

It is for precisely those reasons that every developed country has the equivalent of a TSB (plus dozens of other NGO aviation safety groups worldwide, like the Flight Safety Foundation). The safety of powered aircraft has been investigated and improved upon since its inception in 1903.

Pushing weather, poorly maintained aircraft, pilot error.... All these things have been at the top of the accident causes list since the beginning. And they always will be.

It's 2007, and people still break legs (and occasionally die) by falling down a flight of stairs. A US Senator died that way two weeks ago. Do we respond by reinventing the wheel in terms of staircases? No. You ensure the design is sound, and that people are "trained" properly. But will proper staircase design and "stair lessons" stop people from occasionally breaking a leg? No.

The only way you're guaranteed not to break a leg on the stairs is by not ever climbing or descending them. And the only way you stop airplane accidents is to leave the airplane in the hangar.