![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
check this... | billybeer | Owning | 0 | December 1st 04 01:28 AM |
Check it out | [email protected] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 30th 04 09:35 PM |
Check it out! | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | November 30th 04 01:21 AM |
Check this out! | [email protected] | Aerobatics | 0 | November 30th 04 12:58 AM |
check this out | Tony Verhulst | Soaring | 0 | February 27th 04 04:04 PM |