I briefly entertained flying planes as a hobby. I live next to a small-ish local airfield and a coworker of mine got his license there. Then I learned more about it, and there's way to many accidents like these for me to be comfortable with the risk I'd be taking.
I have no issue with flying commercial planes, but I guess I don't trust myself _and_ the smaller planes enough to do this.
I had a similar decision to make (pilot or motorbike) and the fact that 60%+ of aviation deaths are pilot error and something like 60%+ of motorcycle crashes are NOT the rider's fault - led me to be a pilot. At least then I can try to make good decisions, e.g, DO NOT FLY INTO WEATHER.
MC rider. Many accidents occur during the early years, particularly as the new rider gets comfortable. There's a transition period where your muscle memory kicks in for basic riding skills, but not developed enough to keep you out of trouble. It is an incredible feeling of false confidence that makes you feel invincible. It's possible to be 'smart' and reduce risk during this period, but I'm not advocating people generally go out and start riding either.
And riding beyond the conditions. Motorcyclists cause in fact in my country, many of their own accidents. This despite the fact they’ll claim it’s everybody else’s fault.
Too bad the statistics say otherwise.
I am a motorcyclist myself. I just don’t have the will to lie to myself or others.
The big difference is that aviation doesn't have a pause button. If weather gets bad on the road you can just pull over at basically any time. But if you're flying you have to keep flying until you are able to land.
A "bad error" in a minivan does this too. The "bad error" in the plane would be flying into a thunderstorm. I equate this gobsmackingly bad judgement with driving a minivan off of a cliff.
Bad weather can develop around you, and when flying you can't just pull over and wait for it to pass. A cliff doesn't suddenly develop in front of your minivan.
A relatively minor error can quickly develop into a situation well beyond your control, without any way out of it. That kind of fatal escalation is pretty much impossible with road vehicles.
I got my glider license at 16 and private at 17. Majority of accidents are human error. Though yes an accident with a plane is much costlier than one with a car.
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.
It seems like unjustifiable hubris to assume that I'm significantly less susceptible to human error than the average person that decides to become a pilot.
If you're even thinking about the danger, it's absolutely justifiable to believe you're above the average already. The average person has zero regard for their own safety; governments have to literally force people to wear seatbelts in cars or helmets on motorcycles because they won't do it without threat of financial penalty.
"the average person that decides to become a pilot."
I don't know if this was added in an edit, but it doesn't currently say the average person. I'm pretty sure the average person trying to become a pilot thinks about the danger.
It wasn't added in an edit. I simply don't believe there's a meaningful difference. "The average person who decides to ride a motorcycle" still will not wear a helmet without government intervention, and I don't see any evidence that the average pilot is any different. As others point out, the causes of pilot fatalities are recorded for review, and indicate that a similar level of carelessness can be found in many pilots, who eg. choose to fly in inclement weather when not doing so was an option, and pay for it with their lives. You don't need to be some incredible aviation ace to minimise the risks, you simply need to actually care about your own safety and make conscious decisions not to engage in wantonly reckless behaviour.
OTOH, there are those, particularly those who actually get training and practice in the high-performance zone, who realize the physics of the situation, and feel positively naked driving out without a seatbelt/harness, or helmet where appropriate.
This strikes me as the kind of thing certain parts of the internet tell themselves to justify a feeling of superiority but probably isn't true.
The guy who lives a dangerous life and has a ton of near misses probably thinks about it a lot more than average but it's not gonna change his behavior so thinking about it really isn't worth anything.
I suggest looking up statistics about seatbelt usage rates before legislation. I think you are underestimating how low the bar for personal safety is. In fact, the point I am making is explicitly not about being superior. You don't have to be an amazing driver/rider/pilot, you simply have to give a single fuck about your safety. Most people just don't.
I think you can take steps to inoculate yourself to some extent.
My father subscribed to a newsletter that summarized NTSB general aviation mishap reports when he got his Private Pilot license back in the late 80s. I read them too and was astonished at how many mishaps were very bad judgement calls made by pilots-- flying when the weather wasn't fit, not checking fuel levels, flying after having experienced engine trouble, etc.
I think it should be required reading for every new pilot.
Most human error happens because pilots knowingly ignore safety. "Get-there-itis" for example. You really wanna get home but the weather is an edge case. If you were flying for fun you would stay on the ground but you convince yourself it's not that bad. That kinda thing. Or an engine running a bit rough, "but it's probably ok I'll have it checked next week".
What you need is discipline to say no. That's the root cause of most of these errors. And yes that can be learned.
Every flying club has a few of these people that are talked about in hushed tones at the end of the day when the beers come out. And almost never was the problem their flying skill.
Even if it was it's usually something preventable too. Trying to fix an approach when going around would have been the clear choice. Letting mistakes pile up and not restarting from a known safe position.
But as they already said: unjustifiable hubris to assume it can't happen to you.
Humans make mistakes all. the. time., and you're a human. It is pretty much guaranteed that you are making the exact same kind of mistakes in your day-to-day life. It just doesn't kill you because a broken car merely leaves you stranded and a broken pipe in your home merely causes some financial damage.
Do the same with flying and you'll crash so you'll die. In my opinion private planes should be treated like they are actively trying to kill you, and it is only a matter of time before you will become complacent and make a mistake.
It's not hubris, it's planning for contingencies and being strict on safety. This is what is often forgotten. Realising that it can happen to you and knowing what to do then is the key.
It does not give you 100% guarantees but nothing does.
Most of the time it's the decisions that kill, rather than pure mistakes. It's possible to mitigate that risk. Good decisions (such as using checklists) can also mitigate some of the mistakes.
Of course when you're dealing with a light twin with geared turbocharged engines, there are additional risks from mechanical failures (such as engine fires), as well as mistakes that can happen when addressing an engine failure (shutting down the wrong engine, getting too slow and doing a Vmc roll, etc).
To be honest I would never fly in any light twin other than a Seminole (which I did my multi rating in).
Typically, in places like NTSB reports (or GA - private aviation - accidents in general), it often is human preventable. But the thing is different people have very different tolerance limits.
Pilot A might skip flying if the weather looks bad. Pilot B might go "well the storm's actually only at x location on my route, I'll fly around it". Pilot C might insist on more fuel but take the flight.
I'm not pretending it's possible to avoid (all) accidents with enough care - but if you look at NTSB stats, a vast majority of accidents were things that were quite easily avoidable.
Getting an instrument rating, flying in a plane with a weather radar that can go high (pressurized, beyond 40,000 feet or whereabouts), having another spare pilot and spare engine, and following the "big boy" scheduled airline (part 121) protocols and rules and minimums will almost certainly help avoid 50%+ (very conservatively) of GA accidents causes.
Yes, you still need to be careful and not fall victim to things like Get-there-itis (which pushes pilots to fly when they shouldn't because they want to get there). However... it's a swiss cheese model of accident avoidance. Remove as many factors from your side as you can, do your checklists, IMSAFE etc, and you're very likely to be (physically) okay.
Oh, and get a Cirrus with a parachute while we're at it. They've got auto land on their new planes too iirc.
I think it's important to multiply "likelihood of the human making a mistake" by "how many times the human must avoid a mistake". If your hobby presents 100 avoidable-but-life-threatening mistakes an hour, it's a dangerous hobby.
Driving a car presents 100 avoidable-but-life-threatening-potential-mistakes an hour. I'm personally exceptionally risk-averse and avoid cars for that reason, but I don't think that level of risk aversion necessarily needs to be typical. It's certainly worth pointing out that a safety-conscious person can significantly reduce the risk of a given activity, even if they can't eliminate it completely. And, to be honest, I'd rather encourage risk-aware pilots to take up the hobby! Airliner pilots have to come from somewhere, and I'd prefer if my airline pilot was one who considered the risks of flying and did it anyways rather than having an airline pilot who is totally reckless and simply doesn't care about risks.
Well it's not the safest thing but you control most of that. You decide whether to take off or not, what weather you accept, whether to do a proper walkaround.
Usually accidents are due to people taking too many risks. Yes it can happen but you can prevent a lot by being a stickler for safety.
And you can put down a GA aircraft in a field easily. When I flew gliders they always taught us to constantly evaluate every field you see as a potential landing site. This behaviour is not focused on enough for powered flying IMO. My instructor would suddenly put his hands over my eyes and say "emergency, where are you putting down right now?" And not having a good answer would have you off the solo list for a week or so. It really helped keeping this in the back of the mind. I've not seen that in powered flying at all.
It's not a safe hobby if you want to have fun flying the plane.
It's like the difference between sports car enthusiasts who are proud of how long their tires and brakes last vs the ones who are proud of how short they last.
If you think you have the skill and luck of Chuck Yeager, by all means, go fly boldly.
One of my old coworkers was a retired navy captain who used to be an instructor at Top Gun and had hundreds of night carrier landings. He told me that he'd have to be forced at gunpoint to fly on a small general aviation airplane, it's just too dangerous.
>One of my old coworkers was a retired navy captain who used to be an instructor at Top Gun and had hundreds of night carrier landings. He told me that he'd have to be forced at gunpoint to fly on a small general aviation airplane, it's just too dangerous.
it's just not that simple.
Some of the smallest GA craft are the safest by the numbers until you group them into the same category as famously sophisticated or hard to maintain models.
if it were me i'd be worried about the bigger GA planes. More to go wrong, more to distract the pilot, more reliance on the pilot being able to manage multiple engines and special equipment, more difficult take-offs, etc.
Being a test pilot is a whole different thing. It is all about calculated risk. Those calculations are done by teams of engineers and not just the pilot themselves.
Calculated risk? Nah those guys are gloriously insane. They do minimize risks, but they also go into the air wright-bro-style except instead of a glider that will go 200m they're strapped to two experimental jets in an airframe that was welded, not pressed ^^
I am not saying that test pilots are not brave. They certainly are. However, they are brave + skilled + practice + smart + can perform under stress.
This is a slightly stretched analogy, but test pilots make me think of Alex Hannold. In the movie Free Solo he is presented as some insane person... it turns out that he is extremely intelligent + skilled + practices a lot + can perform under stress.
In both cases, they are the best of us. However, being brave/nuts is the elementary school version of understanding what it takes to be these people.
>Guillemot helped transform Ubisoft from a mail-order software business into one of the world's largest video game companies
Wrong, Guillemot and his family greedy, destroyed one of the most successful gaming companies in the gaming history.
If you have been following the gaming space within the last 5 years or so, it is safe to say that he won't be missed, and it opens the door for Tecent to bring the Ubisoft back to its glory if that is even possible at this stage.
June 8: A Gulfstream G200 crashed while landing at La Romana International in the DR, it was on the way to pick up former MLB player Yadier Molina, but it had to make an emergency landing. Both pilots, the only occupants, died.
June 10: A Pakistan Army Aviation Mi-17 helicopter crashed near Muzaffarabad. All 22 on board perished.
June 11: Turkish Airlines Flight TK2430, a Boeing 777-300ER, collided with a ground radar antenna while taxiing to its gate after landing at Antalya Airport when the aircraft turned onto a taxiway too small for 777's. Despite the damage to the aircraft, only 1 of 267 souls aboard were injured.
June 11: United Airlines Flight 1275, a Boeing 737, was delayed after a swarm of bees stuck to its right wing. The pilots decided to take off with the insects still on said wing; they all cleared off once the aircraft got airborne. No bees entered the aircraft and no injuries were reported.
June 11: A Piper PA-36 collided with a tower near Barrelman Airport and crashed. The former president of the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), Rick Boardman, died.
June 11: A Cirrus SR20 crashed into a house after taking off from Portsmouth, Ohio. Only the pilot was killed, and both occupants of the home escaped uninjured.
June 11: A Zhonglian F-27 light helicopter suffered a tail-boom failure and crashed during a test flight in Jiangsu. The pilot and passenger survived with non life-threatening injuries.
June 12: SriLankan Airlines Flight UL-606, an Airbus A330, had its engine struck by lightning just after takeoff from Colombo International; the plane landed safely and no injuries were reported.
June 13: Singapore Airlines Flight SQ114, a Boeing 737-800, suffered burst tires upon landing at Kuala Lumper International; the plane managed to stop on the runway, and no injuries were reported.
June 13: An Indian Air Force An-32 crashed while attempting to land Jorhat Air Force Base in Assam. 5 of the 6 people on board died, with the co-pilot, as of writing, claimed to have been the only survivor.
June 13: A US Marine Corp F/A-18 Hornet Crashed in Washington State near Rimlock Lake. The pilot safely ejected and survived.
June 14: Two helicopters collided mid-air over Brazil. All six people on board both helicopters perished, including American songwriter and rapper, Oliver Tree.
June 14: A Pacific Aerospace 750XL, N221BN, crashed shortly after takeoff from Butler Memorial Airport in Butler, Missouri. The pilot and 11 skydivers on board perished.
June 14: A Piper PA-28, N15564, crashed shortly after takeoff from Key West, Florida. Initially, 5 people were reported to be on board, but it was found out that only 2 people were; both survived.
June 14: Delta Airlines Flight 2905, a Boeing 737-900, collided with a catering truck at Seattle-Tacoma International; no injuries were reported.
June 15: A Russian Tu-22 bomber crashed in Siberia during a training flight. As of writing, everyone on board has been reported to have ejected and survived.
June 15: A Pakistan Air Force trainer aircraft crashed in Pakistan's Mardan district. As of writing, both of the pilots were killed, and at least three motorists were injured.
June 15: A Van's RV-3A crashed into a cow field about 15 miles north of Lakeland, FL. The pilot was killed.
There were some more in the last three days as well...
Looks like a lot. Is it always like that, or were the last two weeks really that special?
One thing that sticks out is that GA (small), but also military, planes' accidents usually end with deaths and big planes accidents usually end with everything being fine.
You’ll hear about deadly small plane accidents, and about accidents of large planes, but are unlikely to hear about harmless accidents with small planes. Just not interesting. But they happen all the time.
Wow, thanks a lot! I kind of knew things like that happen (one instance of a thing happening brings attention to other similar things), but didn't know it actually had a name.
Thank you. I really like knowing precise names for things, because it gives me a feeling of correctness and satisfaction.
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.
Funny, I put parachutes on my airplanes in kerbal space program (as a safety feature) but never considered what the real-life analogue to that would be. Turns out it's very similar!
False. Analogue does not mean having the same function.
Analogue, in this sense, means some action or thing seen as comparable to another.
If something is analogous of, or to something, it is proportional to something else.
The proportionality describes a primary/secondary relationship. If two actions/things are entirely comparable - i.e. orthagonality approximating 0.0 - then they are not analogues, but rather equivalents.
Something may be a poor comparison to another thing, but still be an analogue - albeit, a poor analogue in comparison to some other, original, instance.
I clicked a news article a few months ago about a crash... Google has since decided I need to know about all future aviation accidents. I was surprised how frequent it happens. Two brothers were killed in a Cessna just the other day.
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.
Counterintuitively, it's probably the unrealistically high maintenance standards that lead to 1) no available qualified mechanics, and 2) incredibly high prices, resulting in 3) deferring whatever is possible to defer. This is the situation in the US; I imagine costs are doubly impactful in a country like France.
Aviation is in a huge rut. A major issue is that innovation is nearly dead. Want to bring a new aircraft to market? Got 5-10 years to get it certified while not being able to sell it to a market size of....? How about a new engine? In GA we fly 80yo designs around not because they are great, but because nobody can innovate to bring in the better stuff. I have a lot of hope for electric aviation because a new regulatory space and simpler designs may mean faster certification which could lead to real innovation in the space.
Every now and then there are some people who try to innovate in this space. Example: The guys from corsairpower (https://corsairpower.com/) who put a marine engine in a Cessna 172.
However, it seems like they get stuck because of small market size, regulations and incumbents who don't want the status quo to change.
It's certainly possible to maintain GA aircraft to a high standard and not break the bank. For example, a flying club I'm in has Cessna 172s for $116/hr wet with no-compromises maintenance.
If you're not directly involved in the maintenance, I am skeptical. For example, many flying clubs only exist because they have members who are A&Ps / IAs, who maintain the plane in consideration of membership. That's a workaround for the problem I'm presenting. I won't say it's impossible, but it's increasingly difficult and location-dependent.
The vast majority of GA crashes are pilot error directly or indirectly (taking off without fuel is "technically" a mechanical issue but really pilot failure).
I just went through a bunch of reports while I'm on call at work. Yes, pilot error is far and away the biggest official cause (although I've read some reports along the lines of "wing fell off", cause: pilot's failure to keep airplane flying with one wing). Pilots make mistakes. But as with so many things it just isn't that simple.
That said, there are a ton of tools available now that give massively enhanced situational awareness to keep pilots from making mistakes. Cooking a cylinder on takeoff should not happen anymore with fully instrumented EGT/CHT displays and alarms. And indeed, powerplant failures are way down despite flying the same powerplants.
But for some reason engine monitors cost thousands [https://sarasotaavionics.com/search?q=engine+monitor]. Many of the dwindling numbers of A&Ps don't know how (and so decline) to install them, and only authorized inspectors (a fraction of licensed mechanics) are allowed to sign off on an installation to make it legal. And when they do, they're told their license is on the line if a mistake is found.
So when a pilot burns or sticks a valve, has to navigate a partial power situation, and in a moment of extreme stress makes an error in emergency landing, was this a technical problem? A regulatory one? A monopolistic economic problem? Or just blind pilot error?
Well, you'll probably get your wish in the US anyway. I just paid $50 for a 2 inch square vacuum pump cover that should have cost $5. I have oil hoses that I would like to replace, but the $750 price tag (up $200 in six months) is giving me pause— replace, hope for the best, or hang it up and stop flying?
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.
So right now, A&Ps make about 120-150 per hour, and they have the skills to get hired at dealerships where the hourly is above 200. There are not enough A&Ps.
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.
I mean, the moment my car starts going 200 miles per hour+ at 5,000 feet+ over peoples houses, yes you better ramp up the inspections.
There has been a massive increase in student/new pilots in the last 5 or so years. This will demand an increase in light aircraft technicians and engineers, just like any other industry that experiences growth in a sector.
From this and your other responses, I think you have a pretty poor understanding of the aviation industry. That's okay— it's a weird sector, currently, because of its high barrier to entry.
I would be so happy if my plane could go 200 mph; it would make it so much more practical. It's faster than most at my airport, but not that fast by a lot. At 5000 feet you have so many more options; the regulation in 91.119 (off the top of my head, even) is 500 ft from houses + cars, or 1000 ft in "congested areas". There's some conjecture on what a congested area actually is.
Inspection do look for things like cracks, but are more for spotting illegal cupholders and ensuring logbooks are in order. There's a very keen understanding in the industry that a plane after maintenance is in its most dangerous state— plenty of folks wonder if disassembling airplanes on a yearly basis (sometimes sooner) and putting them all back together isn't worse than the alternative. On one of my plane's first annual inspections, I got the airplane back with the bottom of the engine cowling still disassembled-- parts just stuffed back in place. I then had a spark plug fail 2 hours later. We think it was dropped and cracked, but the mechanic didn't want to own up.
Unfortunately, the industry is not currently growing (you may recall some new stories about Spirit most recently). Further, most of "any other industry" are not so tied into the military and intense, stagnant regulation. People here keep telling you that aviation is in a rut. It's a rut we know how to get out of, but the government is going to have to allow us a pathway to do so. Otherwise, there are plenty of countries to look to for insights into our future— dead GA for the wealthy only, and a less free populace.
THere are parachutes for small aircraft these days. If I were flying one and had their money I would get that installed. Of course that doesn’t protect against crashing into mountainsides or losing ones orientation, but it does help against engine failure at altitude.
probably a hobby but a 421 is a high performance dual engine with a pressurized cabin... that's a lot of plane and dual engines are difficult to fly with a lot of technical knowledge and practice to handle an engine out procedure safely. this kind of plane very commonly kills doctors and other high earning individuals that don't have the time to keep their time in the plane to stay recent.
a lot of time people do buy multi engine planes for travel so it's not certain it was just a hobby.
I worked for a small successful company in the pharmaceutical industry. One of their founders died in a crash in his small personal aircraft. He was a really nice guy and very charismatic. I was not working there when the accident happened, but I was sad to hear about it.
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.
This sort of thing is one of the reasons Elon became so important at Tesla. The other key players died in a freakish plane crash, apparently hitting transmission lines at low altitude which is not something parachutes would likely have helped with.
It seems like you’re just trying to say he was a bad guy and you’re glad he’s dead, which is a valid way to feel, but doesn’t seem like the right type of comment for HN.
Maybe framing it as, “For those who don’t know this name, here’s why I do:” would be more interesting and helpful.
When/where I grew up (the United States), private planes were thought of as auto-un-aliving machines for Doctors and Dentists.
Boomers and older generations tended to think of them as part of rural life. E.g. farmers would sometimes put an airstrip on a spare field. There's an episode of Mayberry (The Andy Griffith Show) in which Aunt Bea gets her pilots license.
I briefly entertained flying planes as a hobby. I live next to a small-ish local airfield and a coworker of mine got his license there. Then I learned more about it, and there's way to many accidents like these for me to be comfortable with the risk I'd be taking.
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 had a similar decision to make (pilot or motorbike) and the fact that 60%+ of aviation deaths are pilot error and something like 60%+ of motorcycle crashes are NOT the rider's fault - led me to be a pilot. At least then I can try to make good decisions, e.g, DO NOT FLY INTO WEATHER.
And a lot of the pilot deaths are not because of in-the-moment skill deficiencies.
Stick and rudder skills aren't that useful with fuel exhaustion and bad weather planning. It's much easier to stay safer in a plane vs motorcycle.
I wish people treated cars and motorcycles properly, especially in the US. Until then, no motorcycles for me either :(
Yeah, I think the rules for motorcycles are also less stringent in Canada than in EU. And road conditions often not great.
Of course the 6 months of winter in Toronto also make it less appealing to drive a motorcycle.
MC rider. Many accidents occur during the early years, particularly as the new rider gets comfortable. There's a transition period where your muscle memory kicks in for basic riding skills, but not developed enough to keep you out of trouble. It is an incredible feeling of false confidence that makes you feel invincible. It's possible to be 'smart' and reduce risk during this period, but I'm not advocating people generally go out and start riding either.
Similar in aviation, where it’s known as „the killing zone“.
> MC rider. Many accidents occur during the early years, particularly as the new rider gets comfortable.
A large portion (half?) of crashes also involve alcohol.
And riding beyond the conditions. Motorcyclists cause in fact in my country, many of their own accidents. This despite the fact they’ll claim it’s everybody else’s fault.
Too bad the statistics say otherwise.
I am a motorcyclist myself. I just don’t have the will to lie to myself or others.
"Had to lay'er down."
DanDanTheFireman is a good channel that goes over footage and analyses what was done well and what was done badly.
This is true for pretty much everyone in every skill. But that's an empty statement.
A huge danger for motorcycle riders is young/new car drivers who fall into this exact local minimum.
The big difference is that aviation doesn't have a pause button. If weather gets bad on the road you can just pull over at basically any time. But if you're flying you have to keep flying until you are able to land.
In GA that’s usually surprisingly quick - it’s absolutely amazing just how many runways are everywhere
The stakes get even higher if you fly a plane with your entire family in it. One bad error and you will almost certainly have killed them all.
A "bad error" in a minivan does this too. The "bad error" in the plane would be flying into a thunderstorm. I equate this gobsmackingly bad judgement with driving a minivan off of a cliff.
Bad weather can develop around you, and when flying you can't just pull over and wait for it to pass. A cliff doesn't suddenly develop in front of your minivan.
A relatively minor error can quickly develop into a situation well beyond your control, without any way out of it. That kind of fatal escalation is pretty much impossible with road vehicles.
That kind of fatal escalation occurs 40,000 times a year in vehicles.
I got my glider license at 16 and private at 17. Majority of accidents are human error. Though yes an accident with a plane is much costlier than one with a car.
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.
It seems like unjustifiable hubris to assume that I'm significantly less susceptible to human error than the average person that decides to become a pilot.
If you're even thinking about the danger, it's absolutely justifiable to believe you're above the average already. The average person has zero regard for their own safety; governments have to literally force people to wear seatbelts in cars or helmets on motorcycles because they won't do it without threat of financial penalty.
"the average person that decides to become a pilot."
I don't know if this was added in an edit, but it doesn't currently say the average person. I'm pretty sure the average person trying to become a pilot thinks about the danger.
It wasn't added in an edit. I simply don't believe there's a meaningful difference. "The average person who decides to ride a motorcycle" still will not wear a helmet without government intervention, and I don't see any evidence that the average pilot is any different. As others point out, the causes of pilot fatalities are recorded for review, and indicate that a similar level of carelessness can be found in many pilots, who eg. choose to fly in inclement weather when not doing so was an option, and pay for it with their lives. You don't need to be some incredible aviation ace to minimise the risks, you simply need to actually care about your own safety and make conscious decisions not to engage in wantonly reckless behaviour.
Indeed most of them wont do it without threat
OTOH, there are those, particularly those who actually get training and practice in the high-performance zone, who realize the physics of the situation, and feel positively naked driving out without a seatbelt/harness, or helmet where appropriate.
This strikes me as the kind of thing certain parts of the internet tell themselves to justify a feeling of superiority but probably isn't true.
The guy who lives a dangerous life and has a ton of near misses probably thinks about it a lot more than average but it's not gonna change his behavior so thinking about it really isn't worth anything.
I suggest looking up statistics about seatbelt usage rates before legislation. I think you are underestimating how low the bar for personal safety is. In fact, the point I am making is explicitly not about being superior. You don't have to be an amazing driver/rider/pilot, you simply have to give a single fuck about your safety. Most people just don't.
I think you can take steps to inoculate yourself to some extent.
My father subscribed to a newsletter that summarized NTSB general aviation mishap reports when he got his Private Pilot license back in the late 80s. I read them too and was astonished at how many mishaps were very bad judgement calls made by pilots-- flying when the weather wasn't fit, not checking fuel levels, flying after having experienced engine trouble, etc.
I think it should be required reading for every new pilot.
Most human error happens because pilots knowingly ignore safety. "Get-there-itis" for example. You really wanna get home but the weather is an edge case. If you were flying for fun you would stay on the ground but you convince yourself it's not that bad. That kinda thing. Or an engine running a bit rough, "but it's probably ok I'll have it checked next week".
What you need is discipline to say no. That's the root cause of most of these errors. And yes that can be learned.
Every flying club has a few of these people that are talked about in hushed tones at the end of the day when the beers come out. And almost never was the problem their flying skill.
Even if it was it's usually something preventable too. Trying to fix an approach when going around would have been the clear choice. Letting mistakes pile up and not restarting from a known safe position.
But as they already said: unjustifiable hubris to assume it can't happen to you.
Humans make mistakes all. the. time., and you're a human. It is pretty much guaranteed that you are making the exact same kind of mistakes in your day-to-day life. It just doesn't kill you because a broken car merely leaves you stranded and a broken pipe in your home merely causes some financial damage.
Do the same with flying and you'll crash so you'll die. In my opinion private planes should be treated like they are actively trying to kill you, and it is only a matter of time before you will become complacent and make a mistake.
It's not hubris, it's planning for contingencies and being strict on safety. This is what is often forgotten. Realising that it can happen to you and knowing what to do then is the key.
It does not give you 100% guarantees but nothing does.
Most of the time it's the decisions that kill, rather than pure mistakes. It's possible to mitigate that risk. Good decisions (such as using checklists) can also mitigate some of the mistakes.
Of course when you're dealing with a light twin with geared turbocharged engines, there are additional risks from mechanical failures (such as engine fires), as well as mistakes that can happen when addressing an engine failure (shutting down the wrong engine, getting too slow and doing a Vmc roll, etc).
To be honest I would never fly in any light twin other than a Seminole (which I did my multi rating in).
Too many people read "human error" as "human preventable" rather than "a thing you will also do because you are human"
Typically, in places like NTSB reports (or GA - private aviation - accidents in general), it often is human preventable. But the thing is different people have very different tolerance limits.
Pilot A might skip flying if the weather looks bad. Pilot B might go "well the storm's actually only at x location on my route, I'll fly around it". Pilot C might insist on more fuel but take the flight.
I'm not pretending it's possible to avoid (all) accidents with enough care - but if you look at NTSB stats, a vast majority of accidents were things that were quite easily avoidable.
Getting an instrument rating, flying in a plane with a weather radar that can go high (pressurized, beyond 40,000 feet or whereabouts), having another spare pilot and spare engine, and following the "big boy" scheduled airline (part 121) protocols and rules and minimums will almost certainly help avoid 50%+ (very conservatively) of GA accidents causes.
Yes, you still need to be careful and not fall victim to things like Get-there-itis (which pushes pilots to fly when they shouldn't because they want to get there). However... it's a swiss cheese model of accident avoidance. Remove as many factors from your side as you can, do your checklists, IMSAFE etc, and you're very likely to be (physically) okay.
Oh, and get a Cirrus with a parachute while we're at it. They've got auto land on their new planes too iirc.
I think it's important to multiply "likelihood of the human making a mistake" by "how many times the human must avoid a mistake". If your hobby presents 100 avoidable-but-life-threatening mistakes an hour, it's a dangerous hobby.
Driving a car presents 100 avoidable-but-life-threatening-potential-mistakes an hour. I'm personally exceptionally risk-averse and avoid cars for that reason, but I don't think that level of risk aversion necessarily needs to be typical. It's certainly worth pointing out that a safety-conscious person can significantly reduce the risk of a given activity, even if they can't eliminate it completely. And, to be honest, I'd rather encourage risk-aware pilots to take up the hobby! Airliner pilots have to come from somewhere, and I'd prefer if my airline pilot was one who considered the risks of flying and did it anyways rather than having an airline pilot who is totally reckless and simply doesn't care about risks.
Well it's not the safest thing but you control most of that. You decide whether to take off or not, what weather you accept, whether to do a proper walkaround.
Usually accidents are due to people taking too many risks. Yes it can happen but you can prevent a lot by being a stickler for safety.
And you can put down a GA aircraft in a field easily. When I flew gliders they always taught us to constantly evaluate every field you see as a potential landing site. This behaviour is not focused on enough for powered flying IMO. My instructor would suddenly put his hands over my eyes and say "emergency, where are you putting down right now?" And not having a good answer would have you off the solo list for a week or so. It really helped keeping this in the back of the mind. I've not seen that in powered flying at all.
It's a safe hobby if you want to fly a plane.
It's not a safe hobby if you want to have fun flying the plane.
It's like the difference between sports car enthusiasts who are proud of how long their tires and brakes last vs the ones who are proud of how short they last.
Well, safely flying a plane can be fun too.
It is the same reason I decided against getting a motorcycle (I also decided against getting a PPL as well).
My Dad, a flight instructor, loves to remind me that there are bold pilots and old pilots. But there are no old bold pilots.
Chuck Yeager seemed pretty bold and died at 96.
Yay, one old bold pilot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Yeager
If you think you have the skill and luck of Chuck Yeager, by all means, go fly boldly.
One of my old coworkers was a retired navy captain who used to be an instructor at Top Gun and had hundreds of night carrier landings. He told me that he'd have to be forced at gunpoint to fly on a small general aviation airplane, it's just too dangerous.
>One of my old coworkers was a retired navy captain who used to be an instructor at Top Gun and had hundreds of night carrier landings. He told me that he'd have to be forced at gunpoint to fly on a small general aviation airplane, it's just too dangerous.
it's just not that simple.
Some of the smallest GA craft are the safest by the numbers until you group them into the same category as famously sophisticated or hard to maintain models.
if it were me i'd be worried about the bigger GA planes. More to go wrong, more to distract the pilot, more reliance on the pilot being able to manage multiple engines and special equipment, more difficult take-offs, etc.
Being a test pilot is a whole different thing. It is all about calculated risk. Those calculations are done by teams of engineers and not just the pilot themselves.
Calculated risk? Nah those guys are gloriously insane. They do minimize risks, but they also go into the air wright-bro-style except instead of a glider that will go 200m they're strapped to two experimental jets in an airframe that was welded, not pressed ^^
I am not saying that test pilots are not brave. They certainly are. However, they are brave + skilled + practice + smart + can perform under stress.
This is a slightly stretched analogy, but test pilots make me think of Alex Hannold. In the movie Free Solo he is presented as some insane person... it turns out that he is extremely intelligent + skilled + practices a lot + can perform under stress.
In both cases, they are the best of us. However, being brave/nuts is the elementary school version of understanding what it takes to be these people.
Chuck Yeager was a very skilled pilot with inhumanly good vision and ridiculously good luck. He's also a good demonstration of survivorship bias.
Maybe their dad only started saying this in the past three decades
>Guillemot helped transform Ubisoft from a mail-order software business into one of the world's largest video game companies
Wrong, Guillemot and his family greedy, destroyed one of the most successful gaming companies in the gaming history.
If you have been following the gaming space within the last 5 years or so, it is safe to say that he won't be missed, and it opens the door for Tecent to bring the Ubisoft back to its glory if that is even possible at this stage.
Similarly, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48608732
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Guillemot
Bad two weeks for aviation.
Hmm? What else did I miss?
Joshua Baer, founder and CEO of Austin's Capital Factory VC firm, killed in plane crash near Laredo, Texas.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Oliver Tree is a musician who died in a helicopter crash recently too.
The other replies were big stories, as was this B-52 crash:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Air_Force_B...
From here https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/s/cZE1TCwb2B
June 8: A Gulfstream G200 crashed while landing at La Romana International in the DR, it was on the way to pick up former MLB player Yadier Molina, but it had to make an emergency landing. Both pilots, the only occupants, died.
June 10: A Pakistan Army Aviation Mi-17 helicopter crashed near Muzaffarabad. All 22 on board perished.
June 11: Turkish Airlines Flight TK2430, a Boeing 777-300ER, collided with a ground radar antenna while taxiing to its gate after landing at Antalya Airport when the aircraft turned onto a taxiway too small for 777's. Despite the damage to the aircraft, only 1 of 267 souls aboard were injured.
June 11: United Airlines Flight 1275, a Boeing 737, was delayed after a swarm of bees stuck to its right wing. The pilots decided to take off with the insects still on said wing; they all cleared off once the aircraft got airborne. No bees entered the aircraft and no injuries were reported.
June 11: A Piper PA-36 collided with a tower near Barrelman Airport and crashed. The former president of the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), Rick Boardman, died.
June 11: A Cirrus SR20 crashed into a house after taking off from Portsmouth, Ohio. Only the pilot was killed, and both occupants of the home escaped uninjured.
June 11: A Zhonglian F-27 light helicopter suffered a tail-boom failure and crashed during a test flight in Jiangsu. The pilot and passenger survived with non life-threatening injuries.
June 12: SriLankan Airlines Flight UL-606, an Airbus A330, had its engine struck by lightning just after takeoff from Colombo International; the plane landed safely and no injuries were reported.
June 13: Singapore Airlines Flight SQ114, a Boeing 737-800, suffered burst tires upon landing at Kuala Lumper International; the plane managed to stop on the runway, and no injuries were reported.
June 13: An Indian Air Force An-32 crashed while attempting to land Jorhat Air Force Base in Assam. 5 of the 6 people on board died, with the co-pilot, as of writing, claimed to have been the only survivor.
June 13: A US Marine Corp F/A-18 Hornet Crashed in Washington State near Rimlock Lake. The pilot safely ejected and survived.
June 14: Two helicopters collided mid-air over Brazil. All six people on board both helicopters perished, including American songwriter and rapper, Oliver Tree.
June 14: A Pacific Aerospace 750XL, N221BN, crashed shortly after takeoff from Butler Memorial Airport in Butler, Missouri. The pilot and 11 skydivers on board perished.
June 14: A Piper PA-28, N15564, crashed shortly after takeoff from Key West, Florida. Initially, 5 people were reported to be on board, but it was found out that only 2 people were; both survived.
June 14: Delta Airlines Flight 2905, a Boeing 737-900, collided with a catering truck at Seattle-Tacoma International; no injuries were reported.
June 15: A Russian Tu-22 bomber crashed in Siberia during a training flight. As of writing, everyone on board has been reported to have ejected and survived.
June 15: A Pakistan Air Force trainer aircraft crashed in Pakistan's Mardan district. As of writing, both of the pilots were killed, and at least three motorists were injured.
June 15: A Van's RV-3A crashed into a cow field about 15 miles north of Lakeland, FL. The pilot was killed.
There were some more in the last three days as well...
Looks like a lot. Is it always like that, or were the last two weeks really that special?
One thing that sticks out is that GA (small), but also military, planes' accidents usually end with deaths and big planes accidents usually end with everything being fine.
That might be an instance of Berkson‘s paradox.
You’ll hear about deadly small plane accidents, and about accidents of large planes, but are unlikely to hear about harmless accidents with small planes. Just not interesting. But they happen all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox
Wow, thanks a lot! I kind of knew things like that happen (one instance of a thing happening brings attention to other similar things), but didn't know it actually had a name.
Thank you. I really like knowing precise names for things, because it gives me a feeling of correctness and satisfaction.
I'm not sure if the incident with the bees really belongs....
Sad for this.
I am wondering: what's the data on how safe, or unsafe, "private" planes are, e.g. compared to commercial jets?
You'll want the McSpadden report (formerly the Nall report) here [1]
Pay attention to the accidents per 100,000 hours in commercial vs non-commercial fixed wing. Commercial is about 10-40x safer.
[1] https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institut...
Note that here „commercial“ is commercial general aviation (so, not military and not scheduled airliners). Airliners are far safer still.
But commercial planes have a lot more passengers per plane
So in the end commercial planes have a higher death toll?
In order of safest to least safe: commercial jets, automobiles, general aviation aircraft, motorcycles, messing around with Jim.
Why don't planes have parachutes? like a huge parachute that pops on stall to slowly descent the plane?
Some do. Sr-22 for example.
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.
Some do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_Syst...
Funny, I put parachutes on my airplanes in kerbal space program (as a safety feature) but never considered what the real-life analogue to that would be. Turns out it's very similar!
Just so its clear, Kerbal is the analog.
Analogue means having the same function. It does not say which came first.
False. Analogue does not mean having the same function.
Analogue, in this sense, means some action or thing seen as comparable to another.
If something is analogous of, or to something, it is proportional to something else.
The proportionality describes a primary/secondary relationship. If two actions/things are entirely comparable - i.e. orthagonality approximating 0.0 - then they are not analogues, but rather equivalents.
Something may be a poor comparison to another thing, but still be an analogue - albeit, a poor analogue in comparison to some other, original, instance.
Some do [1]. But in GA the costs to fly are so high that adding yet another cost means it is impractical for most GA pilots.
[1] https://brsaerospace.com/
Probably the same reason why you can't wear an airbag suit in commercial airplanes.
Actually he survived, he just has to turn on 39 more radio transmitter towers before he can be rescued.
(and thank you for Far Cry Primal)
Personal aircraft. The great equalizer.
I clicked a news article a few months ago about a crash... Google has since decided I need to know about all future aviation accidents. I was surprised how frequent it happens. Two brothers were killed in a Cessna just the other day.
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.
Counterintuitively, it's probably the unrealistically high maintenance standards that lead to 1) no available qualified mechanics, and 2) incredibly high prices, resulting in 3) deferring whatever is possible to defer. This is the situation in the US; I imagine costs are doubly impactful in a country like France.
Aviation is in a huge rut. A major issue is that innovation is nearly dead. Want to bring a new aircraft to market? Got 5-10 years to get it certified while not being able to sell it to a market size of....? How about a new engine? In GA we fly 80yo designs around not because they are great, but because nobody can innovate to bring in the better stuff. I have a lot of hope for electric aviation because a new regulatory space and simpler designs may mean faster certification which could lead to real innovation in the space.
Every now and then there are some people who try to innovate in this space. Example: The guys from corsairpower (https://corsairpower.com/) who put a marine engine in a Cessna 172. However, it seems like they get stuck because of small market size, regulations and incumbents who don't want the status quo to change.
Don't forget that the incumbents will fight to keep regulatory barriers high.
I'd read this blog post.
You just did.
It's certainly possible to maintain GA aircraft to a high standard and not break the bank. For example, a flying club I'm in has Cessna 172s for $116/hr wet with no-compromises maintenance.
If you're not directly involved in the maintenance, I am skeptical. For example, many flying clubs only exist because they have members who are A&Ps / IAs, who maintain the plane in consideration of membership. That's a workaround for the problem I'm presenting. I won't say it's impossible, but it's increasingly difficult and location-dependent.
what's the club buy in and annual fee? I instruct out of a 150 and $125/hr is the cheapest I can justify charging.
$13800 transferable membership and $220/mo.
Citation needed. Afaik they mostly crash from pilot error, not technical problems caused by too little maintenance.
The vast majority of GA crashes are pilot error directly or indirectly (taking off without fuel is "technically" a mechanical issue but really pilot failure).
Equipment failure is pretty low on list.
I just went through a bunch of reports while I'm on call at work. Yes, pilot error is far and away the biggest official cause (although I've read some reports along the lines of "wing fell off", cause: pilot's failure to keep airplane flying with one wing). Pilots make mistakes. But as with so many things it just isn't that simple.
That said, there are a ton of tools available now that give massively enhanced situational awareness to keep pilots from making mistakes. Cooking a cylinder on takeoff should not happen anymore with fully instrumented EGT/CHT displays and alarms. And indeed, powerplant failures are way down despite flying the same powerplants.
But for some reason engine monitors cost thousands [https://sarasotaavionics.com/search?q=engine+monitor]. Many of the dwindling numbers of A&Ps don't know how (and so decline) to install them, and only authorized inspectors (a fraction of licensed mechanics) are allowed to sign off on an installation to make it legal. And when they do, they're told their license is on the line if a mistake is found.
So when a pilot burns or sticks a valve, has to navigate a partial power situation, and in a moment of extreme stress makes an error in emergency landing, was this a technical problem? A regulatory one? A monopolistic economic problem? Or just blind pilot error?
There are more responses to "hard to schedule, hard to afford" than "defer everything possible"
You can fly something smaller and more inline with your budget
You can share the plane with partners
You can get a motorcycle or boat instead.
...I do not disagree that your presented "option 3" is a common one. That hurts me as both an instructor and a mechanic.
[dead]
[flagged]
Well, you'll probably get your wish in the US anyway. I just paid $50 for a 2 inch square vacuum pump cover that should have cost $5. I have oil hoses that I would like to replace, but the $750 price tag (up $200 in six months) is giving me pause— replace, hope for the best, or hang it up and stop flying?
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...
>or hang it up and stop flying
Yes please. If you can't afford flying around a missle, DON'T.
I thought really hard about coming up with an actual response, but no, you don’t deserve one.
Gee, the aviation world would be so much safer if everyone just listened to pixl97.
So right now, A&Ps make about 120-150 per hour, and they have the skills to get hired at dealerships where the hourly is above 200. There are not enough A&Ps.
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.
This sounds crazy. I wonder how it looks like in Canada. BTW A&P course only takes 6 months?
Since you are also going for your A&P, would love to hear your assessment of build-assist planes and modern rotax powerplants!
I mean, the moment my car starts going 200 miles per hour+ at 5,000 feet+ over peoples houses, yes you better ramp up the inspections.
There has been a massive increase in student/new pilots in the last 5 or so years. This will demand an increase in light aircraft technicians and engineers, just like any other industry that experiences growth in a sector.
From this and your other responses, I think you have a pretty poor understanding of the aviation industry. That's okay— it's a weird sector, currently, because of its high barrier to entry.
I would be so happy if my plane could go 200 mph; it would make it so much more practical. It's faster than most at my airport, but not that fast by a lot. At 5000 feet you have so many more options; the regulation in 91.119 (off the top of my head, even) is 500 ft from houses + cars, or 1000 ft in "congested areas". There's some conjecture on what a congested area actually is.
Inspection do look for things like cracks, but are more for spotting illegal cupholders and ensuring logbooks are in order. There's a very keen understanding in the industry that a plane after maintenance is in its most dangerous state— plenty of folks wonder if disassembling airplanes on a yearly basis (sometimes sooner) and putting them all back together isn't worse than the alternative. On one of my plane's first annual inspections, I got the airplane back with the bottom of the engine cowling still disassembled-- parts just stuffed back in place. I then had a spark plug fail 2 hours later. We think it was dropped and cracked, but the mechanic didn't want to own up.
Unfortunately, the industry is not currently growing (you may recall some new stories about Spirit most recently). Further, most of "any other industry" are not so tied into the military and intense, stagnant regulation. People here keep telling you that aviation is in a rut. It's a rut we know how to get out of, but the government is going to have to allow us a pathway to do so. Otherwise, there are plenty of countries to look to for insights into our future— dead GA for the wealthy only, and a less free populace.
THere are parachutes for small aircraft these days. If I were flying one and had their money I would get that installed. Of course that doesn’t protect against crashing into mountainsides or losing ones orientation, but it does help against engine failure at altitude.
“Doctor killer” for a reason.
It can be monotonous and degrading, but commercial air is the safe way to travel.
It was a Cessna 421 so its not really about travel but flying as a hobby most likely.
probably a hobby but a 421 is a high performance dual engine with a pressurized cabin... that's a lot of plane and dual engines are difficult to fly with a lot of technical knowledge and practice to handle an engine out procedure safely. this kind of plane very commonly kills doctors and other high earning individuals that don't have the time to keep their time in the plane to stay recent.
a lot of time people do buy multi engine planes for travel so it's not certain it was just a hobby.
There's a saying among pilots that on a twin piston (which the 421 is) the second engine is there to get you to the crash site faster.
I worked for a small successful company in the pharmaceutical industry. One of their founders died in a crash in his small personal aircraft. He was a really nice guy and very charismatic. I was not working there when the accident happened, but I was sad to hear about it.
I agree with OP's sentiment.
Seems aircraft have been hard on tech this week.
memento mori
Non paywall source: https://www.reuters.com/world/ubisofts-co-founder-claude-gui...
Thanks, we've changed to that from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-20/ubisoft-c... above.
Paywall there for me, or "allow ads."
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.
This sort of thing is one of the reasons Elon became so important at Tesla. The other key players died in a freakish plane crash, apparently hitting transmission lines at low altitude which is not something parachutes would likely have helped with.
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/plane-crash-kills-tesla-employ...
And he doomed tesla which was earlier soaring to become a trillion dollar company
[dead]
[flagged]
Im going to put my money on the latter.
It seems like you’re just trying to say he was a bad guy and you’re glad he’s dead, which is a valid way to feel, but doesn’t seem like the right type of comment for HN.
Maybe framing it as, “For those who don’t know this name, here’s why I do:” would be more interesting and helpful.
No, I’m not glad he is dead.
[flagged]
Please don't do this here.
So many nerds here in Silicon Valley love to fly small aircraft, it’s an autistic comorbidity. You’ll never catch me acting so foolish.
"autistic comorbidity"
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.
I would argue it has a much closer intersection with wealth.
Your username is painfully not checking out here. :P
When/where I grew up (the United States), private planes were thought of as auto-un-aliving machines for Doctors and Dentists.
Boomers and older generations tended to think of them as part of rural life. E.g. farmers would sometimes put an airstrip on a spare field. There's an episode of Mayberry (The Andy Griffith Show) in which Aunt Bea gets her pilots license.