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.

 

[Dieterly]

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.

Spoken like a true dum bass...

 

[metrodriver]

commuter planes more dangerous? no. They only leave or approach the ground more often than the big ones. And most accidents are the variety where an airplane hits the ground at the wrong place at the wrong time. By the time the commuter pilots have made 7 t/o and landings in a prehistorically equipped airplane in bad weather at little airports with lousy equipment, the 777 crew has just finished their meal on their way to their first landing

 

[chperplt]

Lrjtcaptain,

Someone reminded us in another post recently that no one knows what an idiot someone is until they start writing.... this applies to you in this thread.

Do not speak of what you obviously do not know, and then continue to spew crap trying to back it up.

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.

I especially love that last part.... You over torque the motor and then lose both of them.. Yea.. That's what will happen.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

in rebutle to my 1900 comment, i only made that comment due to the fact that my sim partner at Riddle in the 1900 over tourqued both one day and didn't do anything about it, we didn't survive that one. That was where that came from.

As for shearing, your right, i dont know a whole lot. Riddle didn't teach much about that crap and i ve never really had to expierience any of it. The flying i do now, well i haven't encountered anything more then plus or minus 10 on final and never had a loss of alt.

If anyone would like to enlightenme on microburst theory that would be great. It was help me much better then just blatenly calling me a dumbass on the matter. That may be true in that case.

 

[328jetdriver]

Hey Patriot328, I agree 100%. It's a little rocket (in the climb). Cruise is another story.

 

[JBcrjca]

Wow, I didn't know that Riddle provided students with B777 sim training. How else would Lrjtcaptain know that those engines spool up a lot faster than a Beech 1900s? Do you get a 777 type rating as well as a 1900 type while getting the CFI?

Since thread is easily hijacked, I'll add my two cents worth. I'd also prefer to be in a B1900 or a Lear 25 in a microburst. It's not just a question of weight, but also a thing in physics called 'inertia'. A heavy jet on final has a LOT of weight and downward momentum...couple that with slower fan spoolup times, it takes a little while for the descent to be halted and a climb initiated. Remember the L1011 at DFW back in '85? The crew added power for a missed approach, but even with three mighty RB-211s being pushed all the way up, it was too little/too late. I guess Riddle training isn't as great as a grad would have you believe.

My humble opinion of course, feel free to flame away.

Oh, one more thing...it's spelled 'rebuttal', and 'overtorqued'... it amazes me how poorly people spell these days.

 

[NJA Capt]

If anyone would like to enlightenme on microburst theory that would be great.

A prop is going to spool faster than a jet engine, period (fighter aircraft excluded).
Heavier aircraft+jet engines+tons of thrust does NOT = microburts recovery. Do a search for Delta 191(L1011) and USAir 1016(DC-9).

 

[saabcaptain]

Lrjtcaptain you are getting an unfairly rough time from others who could be kinder. That said please do realize when you comment on a topic like this and use examples to back your point of view and your examples are ones which you admit you don't know much about you might get burned.

Commuters I feel have an excellent although not equal to mainline safety record IMHO because of (in order of importance)...

1. Number of takeoffs and landings.
2. General time spent at lower altitude in harsher weather.
3. Quality of airfields (in terms of approach type, runway length etc.) they operate into.
4. Lesser aircraft capability in terms of automation, radar, ice protection, excess thrust etc.
5. Lesser pilot experience.

Considering the 5 points above it is a fantastic fact that safety is as good as it is at commuters and is a testiment to pilots and airlines and their hardwork and careful attention to detail.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

hey JBcrjca
i don't remember ever saying i have any sim time in a 777. I was using an example.

I was agreeing with another post ontop of this thread saying that they would rather have the 777 over the 1900 in a microburst.

my comment on the sim was with respect to something some dip**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** did when i was in the sim with him. Over tourqued and we lost them both. I was just adding that. had nothing to do with any of this.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

did he say he never had more than +/- 10kts on final and never any altitude loss or gains??

as a lrjet captain??

I must be missing something.....again....or I just have to fly where this guy flies!

 

[chperplt]

as a lrjet captain??

If the hours in his profile are accurate, I hope he's not a learjet captain.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

what i said was i had lack of real world expierience with shearing. Ive only been flying professionaly for a year and 2 months and the wx doesn't get all that bad here. No, im not a lrjet captain.

 

[LearLove]

O my god they are soooo dangerous....

Yeah thoes prop jobbies are so dangerous that the east coast is just covered in prop plane aluminum.

Yep so dangerous that the 30+ year seniority commuter capts. I fly with day in and out must lieing about their records to be flying here since the late 60 early seventies and never as much as put a scratch on a plane not to mention a passenger.

Yep us prop guys are just falling out of the air....

WHATEVER

 

[TurboS7]

In light of this conversation I want to qualify myself. Yes in windshear a lighter airplane is better and does not have the inherant problems of weight and momentum that a large aircraft has. Since it was brought up a friend of mine landed in a LR24 just before the L-1011 in Dallas. He said it was no big deal . I have successfully flown in the sim through the Dallas windshear both with a 727 and a 737-800, no big deal, I knew it was coming and was ready.If I had the choice I would rather do it in a 777, the FD itself runs through all the "majic" and does all the figuring for you, all you have to do is follow it. This is not true on earlier model aircraft.Plus if I am going to die it might as well be in the worlds greatest airliner and at least I'll make the front page of the news----sick huhhh. Seeya.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Are "commuter" planes more dangerous?

No.

Any more asinine questions?

 

[cl-65link]

In a microburst, I'd much rather be on the ground!

 

[T-Gates]

in rebutle to my 1900 comment, i only made that comment due to the fact that my sim partner at Riddle in the 1900 over tourqued both one day and didn't do anything about it, we didn't survive that one. That was where that came from.

As for shearing, your right, i dont know a whole lot. Riddle didn't teach much about that crap and i ve never really had to expierience any of it. The flying i do now, well i haven't encountered anything more then plus or minus 10 on final and never had a loss of alt.

If anyone would like to enlightenme on microburst theory that would be great. It was help me much better then just blatenly calling me a dumbass on the matter. That may be true in that case.

In my experience the 1900 has plenty of power to get it's self out of a windshear situation. Also the 1900's limitations state that you can use 5000 lbs. of torque for 20 seconds then you can reduce to MCP which is 3750 lbs. Thats plenty of power. I've had a few experiences with the 1900 in windshear and it handles very well. The problem with a 777 or equiv. large aircraft in windshear is that you have to deal with arresting a very rapid descent in a relatively short amount of time. And in an aircraft that large with that much momentum, I'd much rather be in the 1900.

Just my .02,

--03M

 

[propilot150]

Well i would rather be in a smaller jet myself. Theyre lighter , and they have a good enough ammount of thrust. I know a pilot for ASA who was on approach in the CRJ to DFW when he first started , he was flying with one of the senior captains , and the captain said to give her a faster speed for this approach , so he did not knowing what was going on ? then sure enough , they got caught in windshear and lost a good bit of altitude and speed. But they made it. Now try that situation in a bigger jet , the 777 perhaps. You got the strong engines of course. But what yall are forgetting is the mass and weght. Just the weight of the plane alone could make it hard to get out of a burst. Then put an extra few thousand pounds for passenger load , ya know. Yeah i take the small jets any day! Take Care
Captain Landry.