I must be the STUPID CMR pilot.

[h25b]

So no comment on the crashes the last few winters with corporate crews not deicing? Or examples of recent fatal 121 crashes that were pilot error? Come on, your disappointing me. Also, I'm working on a way to disprove your NBAA numbers, just haven't closed the gap yet.

You want comment ? Sure, here's a quote... "They were idiots..." Plain and simple. I think you were referring to the Ebersol crash, the TEB Challenger overrun, and the AGCO 604 (operated by Epps Aviation/PDK) out of the U.K. I personally think that these all highlight an industry wide general lack of understanding of swept wing, high-speed aerodynamics. (much like the PCL accident)

The TEB Challenger compares (from what I was told) to the U.S. Airways Express Beech 1900D accident in CLT in terms of improper C.G./Loading as it's becoming clear that icing was only a small part of the overall huge chain of errors.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

The "per 100,000 hours" is what is deceiving about the NBAA's statistics. 100,000 hours is a low number considering the millions of hours per year that corporate aircraft fly, and you can at least double that number for airlines. Its like saying an airline can get fuel at one place for $2.45, and at another place for $2.40. A nickel...big deal right? At the scale of only a gallon, yes it seems small. However when factored over a period of a year using tens of millions of gallons that is going to make a difference.

So, when factored over a period of time (years) using tens of millions of flight hours, the difference between those small decimal numbers is going to be much more significant. I'm trying to find exact numbers as to how many hours per year corporate aircraft fly versus airline aircraft so that I can put this into perspective, however I have not had much luck. I mean, if the NBAA wasn't hiding something with these numbers, why not give us figures that are more practical? Such as exact number of accidents from both sides over the past 10 years? Instead they bury it under some figure that represents the accident rate over a period of a few days or weeks (100,000 hours).

 

[h25b]

I don't think what you are saying passes the smell test. Fatal accidents/100,000 flight hours is what it is. It's an industry standard. It simply states how many fatal accidents occur per every 100,000 hrs. Cut and dry. You're digging yourself in to a hole here buddy.

Here's a link to the CG issue of that TEB Challenger..

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=365438&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchannel_businessweekly_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2FNTSBC03285.xml

O.K.... You are saying the rate of that 1 nickle per 1 gallon over a thousand gallons is somehow different than how many times a given aircraft operator manages to kill someone over a 100, a 1000, or even 100,000 flight hours. By your reasoning you are saying that just because one guy is buying more gas per year that somehow the rate of of savings has somehow changed ???

It doesn't matter how long the corporate operator took to accumulate that 100,000 flight hours. Let's just say it took a corporate jet 10 years to accumulate 100,000 hrs. and it took an RJ 5 years. They were both in the air and exposed to the hazards of flight for the same amount of time. So if the corporate jet killed people once in ten years and the RJ killed people once in 5 years chances of getting killed in either is still the same. In terms of time however, the corporate jet was actually better because it only killed people once in 10 years and the RJ killed people once in 5 years...

Leave me alone brother, I took statistics in college and actually interned in a quality control department tracking failure rates of turbo boost pressure sensors for various ambient relative humidity conditions.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

I don't think what you are saying passes the smell test. Fatal accidents/100,000 flight hours is what it is. It's an industry standard. It simply states how many fatal accidents occur per every 100,000 hrs.

Exactly..and 100,000 hours is what...a couple of days for airlines and maybe a few weeks for corporate operations? Now, factor that over a period of 5 years and how many more accidents do you think you will have? Like I said, I wish I had numbers that represent the number of hours flown per year on each side, but I cannot seem to find this information.

 

[h25b]

Exactly..and 100,000 hours is what...a couple of days for airlines and maybe a few weeks for corporate operations? Now, factor that over a period of 5 years and how many more accidents do you think you will have? Like I said, I wish I had numbers that represent the number of hours flown per year on each side, but I cannot seem to find this information.

Nevermind, you'll never get it...

 

[SkyBoy1981]

Awww c'mon. You're no fun. BTW, I found something that said airlines fly approximately 13 million hours per year. So yeah, that 100,000 hour mark would be reached within 3 days.

 

[54fighting]

Just some FYI, those 2 challenger accidents last year were Part 135, not 91. Might want to get your facts straight before lipping off. I am pretty sure that 135 is included with accident numbers for all corporate aircraft. Take those numbers out and you will see that straight 91 is less than airline. Not here to split hairs about who is better...we are all the same and hopefully can learn from others' experiences instead of pi$$ing all over them

Most reputable 91 operators have ops manuals taken right from 121. Been a CA on both sides.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

Yeah, don't get me wrong..there are quite a few good, safe 91 operations out there. I'm sure quite a few of you work for them (h25b included) and do your part to ensure that they are run in a safe and professional manner, so don't take my comments personally. There are crappy airlines too, and if you want to dog them you won't see me trying to defend them. Go ahead, make fun of Mesa all you want...I don't care.

 

[h25b]

Awww c'mon. You're no fun. BTW, I found something that said airlines fly approximately 13 million hours per year. So yeah, that 100,000 hour mark would be reached within 3 days.

O.K... One more time...

So lets just say the airlines manage to fly 100,000 hrs. in 3 days. Well, by the data we've established that means they would have had .012 fatal accidents in 100,000 hrs. I'll guess (conservatively) that a corporate jet flys 600 hrs./yr.and the average airliner flys 3000 hrs./yr. (I know when I left CHQ that the last Saab I flew had accumulated 30,000 hours in 10 years)

Your chance of having a fatal accident for each hour of airline flight = .0000012 (.012 / 100,000)
Your chance of having a fatal accident for each hour of corporate jet flight = .0000014 (.014 / 100,000)

So your chance of a fatal accident in a corporate jet in a year = .00084 (.0000014 x 600 = .00084)

And your chance of a fatal accident in an airliner in a year = .0036 (.0000012 x 3000)

So on a yearly bases the airliner will be 4.28 times as likely to kill someone.

Check my math, it's getting late...

 

[SkyBoy1981]

I see what you are getting at, and you have a point. I suppose if you consider the lower number of flight hours with corporate operations they would then have a lower accident rate over a period of time, just not over a specific number of hours flown. Anyway, I'm getting too tired to think about it myself...good argument as always though.