On Dec 1, 5:32*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
Flaps_50! writes:

I agree that removing the engine might reduce the probability of a
mechanical failure, and yet the stats say gliders have more
accidents.

Both gliders and powered aircraft require a source of propulsion, even if it
isn't the same source. Neither source of propulsion is completely reliable.

The difference is that a glider's energy source is so UNreliable that no
sane pilot would ever count on it being there, and the glide performance
is necessarily so large, thus a safe landing spot is always kept within
range.

As for the stats, I speculate that the main reason the glider stats are
worse is because the "GA" stat includes lots of big corporate jets which
have more airliner-like safety stats. My *guess* is that comparing small
planes to gliders will reveal more similar levels of risk, but I could
easily be wrong on that.


I posted the figures for single engine -not usually the class of a
corporate jet...
Seems like glider piloting is a problem (it can't be the iron fairy)
or is there another cause?

Cheers