Podcast #128: We chat with Kent C Dodds about why he loves React and discuss what life was like in the dark days before Git. Listen now.
30

Yes learn both, but... not at the same time. As Dave says, there are too many differences to be absorbing simultaneously. It's like a new airline pilot taking a type course on a Dash 8 and an RJ at the same time. It'll burn you out. If all this is a hobby activity in the first place with no urgent time lines, drop the power training for now and go take a ...


25

Cloud, you are making a huge inference from a few small data points. But in any case, to the basic question, which is actually a very good one: In terms of the chance of getting killed, (what you seem to be looking for), maybe, marginally, but not enough to rule out operating from grass. If you know what you are doing, and make allowances, I would say ...


14

First of all, Ryanair has more than 700,000 flights per year now, but not during their entire 35 year existence. The total number of flights you give is therefore too high. Assuming aircraft accidents are purely statistical (which is not true, of course), one can estimate the number of accidents you expect using a Poisson distribution: the probability of ...


10

It is unreasonable to assume that a busier airport has a higher rate of fatalities compared to a smaller airport. There is just no logical reason to think so. The total number of fatalities may well be higher simply because there is a larger number of flights, but I know that is not what you are asking. You might think that busier airports would have more ...


10

Intentionally with a large aircraft, yes. There was however an instance in 1945, where a B-25 Mitchell collided with the Empire State building. This however was an accident. There have been several suicides by airplane where the aircraft was deliberately crashed into buildings, such as the C172 which was crashed into a Tampa FL high rise in 2002 or the ...


7

John K already gave a great answer about the runway surface itself and there are some other points that might be worth mentioning too. Grass runways are often uncontrolled, short, rough, obstructed, and generally different from paved ones. That's a big generalization, of course, but it's worth thinking about the wider runway environment. Uncontrolled. ...


7

Each time you interpret statistical values, you need to look at both, the mean value and the mean deviation. The mean value of incidents per flight per year gives you the expectation value. That would be the 2 to 3 that you cited. Now you have to look at the distribution. Many statistics are shaped like the famous Gauss bell. The statistic of accidents per ...


7

I'd argue fall and spring bring more unpredictable weather, and slippery runways are year-round in the tropics. That being said, for all jet (commercial) accidents, the weather-related contributing threats are: Meteorology (e.g., failure to identify threats before a flight) 30% Windy conditions 16% Poor visibility 10% Thunderstorms 9% Icing 1% Poor ...


6

« Some of the survival game involves factors passengers largely can't control, like the weather, flight crew skills, the design of airline seats and the construction, maintenance and age of the plane. But passengers themselves can do a lot to improve their chances of survival simply by making smart choices and being informed. »⁴ Things you can do: ...


5

The following is a list of deadly turbulence accidents on jet airliners since 1980. Excluded are accidents involving jet airliners designed or built in the former Soviet Union. For a more complete list see aviation-safety.net. 10 May 1980, Indian Airlines B737-200, near Rampur Hat/India: The aircraft experienced severe en route turbulence. 2 of the 132 ...


5

The plane was flown into the ground with a clearly visible and well-known landing error, pitching down after a bounce. That said, to blame it squarely on the pilots is premature, especially as the crew will soon be able to shed light on what happened. I've done some of the same in simulators with heavy instrument failures, although their poor/lacking damage ...


4

No, this is not a good way of understanding safety in aviation. The figures you have may be accurate, but they are not figures describing the same things. You have figures describing fatalities per 100'000 hours, 100'000 flights, and per year. In order to establish relative risk, you first must settle upon a common metric for each of these ways of flying, ...


4

No it will make it more dangerous. Gliders and powered aircraft have different flight characteristics. You will have learn how to handle two completely different machines. You will have to develop muscle memory for two different types of aircraft. The flight procedures for the two types of aircraft are completely different, different approach profiles etc....


3

I could not find statistics, so I parsed the data available on https://aviation-safety.net/database. This site does have a statistics page, but it does not have an answer to your question. I'm not a statistician so I'm sure there are much better ways to crunch and graph this data, but the raw data I found was: The data includes 5075 crashes from the years ...


3

Ill second Camille's answer and add the missing factor of GA vs. Commercial Aviation. The NTSB makes the 2012-2016 data available in spreadsheet format here. If you download that and combine all the accident data you will see that the overall accident data for those years, plotted by month looks something like this: This data set for even the limited years ...


3

Accidents are rarest in winter. In https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx, click "Download all (text)", to get a file AviationData.txt containing 80,000 accidents and 4,000 incidents. Keep only the Accidents, split the |-delimited fields to get mm/dd/yyyy, then split by / to get the month, then count how often each month appears. From a ...


2

I want to add one more thing that neither existing answer discusses, but which I feel is relevant here. Grass strips are more difficult than hardened ones to spot from the air, especially if you're not used to them and know exactly what to look for. This doesn't make them more dangerous per se (as a pilot, you should only continue the landing if doing so ...


2

Does anybody have numbers of fatal crashes pr. million flights, or similar? Not that I can find. Too little data? In terms of airline passenger miles, the SSJ100 seems to account for a tiny proportion of passenger miles in Russia. Non russian airlines have eliminated or scaled-back use of the SSJ100 According to Time Mexico’s Interjet said Sunday it ...


2

One is for when the seat in front of you is in the way of using the other. The other is for when you can't reach a seat in front of you. They won't both be relevant for the same person in a given seat. If you can assume the second position, the first one probably won't provide meaningful support for your head anyway.


2

PL at idle is one of several conditions (weight on wheels, N1, wheel speed etc) that have to be satisfied to get ground lift dumpers to come out on airliners. Reverse isn't required. Once on the ground, just moving the PL levers back toward TO thrust makes them come back down.


2

As the wonderful Aviation After-Dinner speaker David Gunson used to say, "You should always sit at the back as no aircraft had yet been known to reverse into a mountain." This was, of course, before the Osprey made it a possibility.


1

For assessing GA safety (in all categories really, down to paramotors), you have to evaluate things from the standpoint of a non-idiot pilot, not just the raw statistical numbers, because the raw numbers are totally polluted by stupidity. If you filtered out GA accidents caused by pilots doing stupid things; running out of gas, running into weather, ...


1

You seem to list the fatal accident numbers in the correct descending order, while leaving out a number for commercial flying. "General Aviation (learning or as a passenger in a Cessna and the like)" General aviation covers much more than your simplfied comment as noted in the FAA link you provided for a 2017 Nall Report covering data from 2015, while only ...


1

Just from the factory new may not be the best. Many electronic devices (and there are lots of them in a modern airliner) have the short "burn in" period when they fail more often, here and more realistic plots here. Then there is a long service period when they are reliable, and ultimately the reliability degrades again as the device gets old and should be ...


1

The answer is no. Statistics show that new types have lower accident rates than older types. Airbus has grouped aircraft into 4 categories: early jets, autopilot jets, glass cockpits, and FBW jets. They state The lowest sustained fatal accident rate of first generation jets was around 3.0 accidents per million flights, whilst for the second generation it ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible