4 ms·
Jet travel brings improved speed and comfort, not really improved safety. Prop planes, as a technology, are very safe. It is a lot easier to land a prop with a
by ptero 9y ago
Jet travel brings improved speed and comfort, not really improved safety. Prop planes, as a technology, are very safe. It is a lot easier to land a prop with a failed engine or another part -- due to is low speed one can land small props with a high chance of no injuries on unprepared surfaces such as grass fields. For jets, if you have a failed engine and no landing strip you are likely toast (although there are some well publicized exceptions).
The great flight safety numbers of modern jet travel are due to the fact that commercial traffic is heavily regulated end to end, from production to operation, licensing and maintenance. None of this is specific to jet travel, it is just that speed and comfort pushed props mostly out of the business.
- terravion 9y agoIt is very counter-intuitive, but speed increases safety in an aircraft type both as a function of hours and as a function of miles. This is an empirical fact that's true for both military and civilian aircraft, I was looking for the US Air Force chart on this, but couldn't seem to find it. Not to discount other factors, but the OP is correct that speed increases safety. Maybe someone with more Google skills can find this chart.
- jacquesm 9y agoSpeed + altitude combine to give you options, options are what makes an in-flight issue survivable.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 9y agoWhat you describe has nothing to do with jet versus prop, it's just big versus small. Small planes can land in small, unprepared fields, which are common in many parts of the world, whereas large planes can't. You could make a small jet-powered Cessna that would be just as capable of landing in such small places, while offering more safety due to better reliability of the engine. And an airliner-sized prop plane would be no more capable of landing in a hayfield than a 737 would be.
- ptero 9y agoSure, big vs small is a better way to slice it. In fact fast vs slow is likely a better distinction still. But jets are more practical for fast(er) planes.
- Merad 9y agoYou're not really looking at an apples to apples comparison. The last generation of piston engine airliners (the only ones really comparable to the jets that replaced them) used massive turbocharged radial engines that were notoriously complex and unreliable because of all the power being squeezed out of them. Today the vast majority of "prop planes" used in commercial airlines are actually turboprops. Piston engines are basically relegated to small private planes.