I suppose it's a combination of lower maintenance standards and pilot experience, definitely doesn't make me want to hop in a small plane anytime soon.
It can be monotonous and degrading, but commercial air is the safe way to travel.
I agree with OP's sentiment.
I have no issue with flying commercial planes, but I guess I don't trust myself _and_ the smaller planes enough to do this.
RIP Claude, horrible way to die.
I encourage you to read NTSB accident reports. The work the investigators do and the reports they assemble are unparalleled. There are also good parallels to complex systems in general.
Other than the fact that the crash happened, there doesn't seem to be any more detailed news yet, so the headline says pretty much what there is to know at this time.
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/plane-crash-kills-tesla-employ...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
However, often if you’re handling things well, loosing an engine isn’t the end of the world.
A lot of accidents happen very close to the ground, at height wear a parachute wouldn’t necessarily be helpful anyway.
A parachute, a great solution for some scenarios, but for many, it’s not going to change the outcome. Such examples would be mid collisions, low altitude spiral dives, fires, or anything related to a shortage of oxygen. You also need to consider that during a lot of accidents, other factors, such as weather might be impacting the decision matrix of the pilot, and that might prevent them from using a parachute until it’s too late.
The parachutes are also another maintenance item in increasing the cost of running the plane, and generally, the airframe won’t survive the accident, so people are hesitant to deploy them.
Wtf haha. Everything's autism nowadays isn't it.
Perhaps it's just an alignment of having the money to buy a small plane and being interested in planes.
a lot of time people do buy multi engine planes for travel so it's not certain it was just a hobby.
Na, no thank you. I prefer planes not falling out of the sky, especially personal aircraft that already have a very high crash rate due to pilot error alone.
>deferring whatever is possible to defer
Yea, I don't think so. I've seen too many important but non life or death maintenance deferred for reasons outside of money that lead to later disaster. People just kind of suck at it unless they are forced.
Like it or not, more force will definitely raise costs, but it'll also push folks from category one to categories two and three. Or they'll just ignore the regs and begin a normalization of deviance.
[0] https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/superior08-11...
I understand the logic you're using when you say you're happy that the standards are high. What you don't understand is how many A&Ps pencil whip annuals, or overlook corrosion or other safety issues all the time. They are overworked, and spend their time focused on a lot of box checking things that do not matter much and not enough time focusing on the things that do.
Let me make it clearer. If you used the same standards for your car, you'd have to get it fully reinspected every year and fix everything. A little corrosion on your hubcaps? Replace all of them (at 20x the cost you're used to). A chip in your windshield (replace the entire windshield at 10x the cost). Etc etc.
Source: I am studying for the A&P and I own a Cessna 182. The regs really do need to change for smaller certificated aircraft (such as changing annuals to semi-annuals). Look up Mike Busch and his videos on what reforms should look like.
I just had my plane in for an annual. No significant issues. Took 5 months. My plane was in the shop for 5 months. Remember, this is required ANNUALLY. That's how bad the shortage is right now. It's bad enough that I'm willing to take 6 months off work to go __become__ an A&P so I don't need to deal with them anymore.
Equipment failure is pretty low on list.