Are commuter planes more dangerous?-OCR

[Orvilleflyer]

Are commuter planes more dangerous? -OC Register

 

[ArcherB]

this amazes me.... ! I feel like more large ones crash than "commuters".

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

there is plenty of truth. the bigger aircraft are more forgiving then the small ones. In a microburst, i would much rather be on a 777 then a B1900.

Im sure there are cases where i would rather be on the 1900 but can't think of any.

Weather conditions......big airplanes handle it better. Ive gone out in the Be90 and get my a$$ handed to me with turbulance and call it sever when a Md88 might call it light to moderate. It takes alot more ice to take down a 757 but not much to take that comair emb120 down etc......

 

[Rick1128]

Apples and oranges

I really that in many ways you are trying to compare apples and oranges in this debate. Look at the conditions that these aircraft operate in.

Jet Airlines: Operate into long ILS runways. Seldom do VOR approaches. ADF's are virually unheard of. Most never do circling approaches. Higher altitudes allow for less time in most weather. Bleed air anti ice is much more efficent than boots. Better weather reporting and forecasting.

Commuter T/P: Short runways, Fewer ILS, ADF and VOR approaches common. Circling approaches common. More time stuck in the weather. More ice collecting surfaces (props, etc), less effective deice/anti-ice systems. Poorer weather reporting.

There is much more to this question than most give it credit for.

 

[flyhard]

Going to have to disagree on the 777 in a microburst. An aircraft weighing that much and coupled with the lag of spool up on the engines I would take the b1900 any day. The power is almost instantaneous in the b1900.

As far as commuters being involved in more accidents, I think you have to take into account the amount of flying a commuter pilot does. I believe (don't quote me) that statistics show more accidents happen during the transition period from takeoff or landing. Considering the amount of t/o's and landings a commuter makes on the average day makes it seem like they are more likely to have an accident.

Rick1128 sums up the rest.

 

[TurboS7]

I would say that 180,000 pounds of thrust is a pretty good kick in the pants with any micro burst, I'll take the 777.

 

[Cardinal]

LOL, I liked this part better:

Q. You probably won't answer this question, but here goes: Why are pilots so arrogant?

A. In "Hard Landing'' (Random House, $17), a great book about the airline industry, veteran Wall Street Journal reporter Thomas Petzinger Jr. describes pilots this way:

"If it is fair to stereotype people according to the profession they have chosen, doing so with pilots is easy. They are macho, chesty, often full of themselves, and sometimes downright overbearing; theirs, as Lindbergh once remarked, was an activity in which 'man is more than man.'

"At the same time pilots as a group top the scales in pure intelligence. They are decisive and usually passionately committed to an outcome."

When it comes to choosing airmen, profiling is not considered a dirty word. Because the stakes can be so high in our profession, both the military and the airlines use a battery of personality tests developed over the years to help predict which pilot candidates have the "right stuff."

Here's a Top 10 list of desirable pilot traits, for men and women: confidence, assertiveness (but not arrogance), aggressiveness (but not belligerence), courage, compulsivity (to a point), competitiveness, high motivation, self-discipline, reliability and good judgment – definitely more Type A than Type B.

Think about it this way: If you had to choose, what "personality type" would you rather have trying to land your crippled airplane during the proverbial dark and stormy night, when as Lindbergh also remarked, "Life meets death on an equal plane"?

 

[Patriot328]

Short of flying something that has afterburners in the tail and missles under the wings, I'll take my Dojet in a microburst over any other airliner type plane in the air today.

 

[Brother Francis]

MV=MV

Lighter is better in wind shear.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

The objective to this discusion is not microburst. I just brought that up. I dont have much expierience with shears other then reports when im coming into airports.

The question is are commuters more dangerous? Look at the conditions they fly in...

Flyhard made a good point. Circling approaches, higher minimums, more legs in a day etc.....we aren't debating the quality of airplaor pilot...wne e are debating are commuter flights more vulnerable and i would have to say absolutly for those points. They get more cycles in a day then the big jets, they are lighter aircraft and i don't necessarily say operate in any worse weather then bigger planes but more prone to damage from sever weather and fly into airports with ndb/vor non precision approaches.

The reason i pick the 777 in a burst over the b1900 is weight. Its ping pong ball/bowling ball theory. You get a big shear your screwed, but the 777 spools fast enough to give you a chance, the 1900 is so light and those Pt6's don't spool all that quick, and when you do fire wall anyways you over tourque the motor, and then loose them both, anyways that has nothing to do with this topic.

As for the DOJET over all the others, yeaah, those climb great from what i have heard.