4 ms·

Short operational lifetime? What's your source on that. There's plenty of Bell 206's from the 70's that are still in operation, and that's just one random examp

Short operational lifetime? What's your source on that. There's plenty of Bell 206's from the 70's that are still in operation, and that's just one random example. If 50 years is not adequate, what is? https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_group=BELL+206+SERIES&s-type=aircraft https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_... What is "limited redundancy"? Either it's redundant or it's single point failure. I don't know what that term means. Poor crash worthiness? Again, please explain. The American helicopter society published a report in 1994 detailing how the "new" crashworthiness requirements had improved survivability in helicopter accidents. Also noting how many fewer class a/b accidents were occurring due to other safety improvements. The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. I don't know where you got your impressions, but they are not accurate.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pmiller2 8y ago
> The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. Are you sure about that? I'm willing to bet that for each crashed vehicle, there are far fewer people on average on each helicopter than in the average airplane.
- endymi0n 8y ago
  The number might be right but misleading in a way. Fixed wing commercial aircraft tend to have a LOT of passengers, while helicopters usually have just a handful of them. I‘d wager the factor on average load is about 50-100x – which is then also the rate at which fixed-wing aircraft crash less per operational hour. Crashes will just kill many more people, which skews the stats.
  - asynchronous13 8y ago
    No, it's the low passenger count airplanes that really drive the statistics. In 50 years, there's been 30 crashes of 747s that resulted in loss of life. They are crazy safe. As a comparison, there are more than 200 crashes of Cessna 172 aircraft each year. In 2013 there were more than 1200 small plane crashes resulting in 350+ deaths, but zero large commercial aircraft accidents (in 2009, a 50-passenger plane crashed killing all onboard. There were no 50+ person crashes from 2009-2013) So yes, large scale aircraft are crazy safe and crash less. But small scale airplanes are worse than helicopters.
- asynchronous13 8y ago
  That was the data as of 2009. Helicopters do crash more frequently than airplanes (on the order of 30% more crashes per flight hour). Part of that is due to how and when helicopters are used. Flying next to 500,000 Volt power lines is dangerous. When the coast gaurd is plucking someone out of the ocean, they use a helicopter, not an airplane. And people don't fall off boats when the weather is nice. There are no helicopters comparable to a 747 as far as passenger count goes. So from that perspective you're right. But a 747 is also crazy safe and barely contributes to the average accident rate. The small 2-10 seat airplanes are the ones that crash a lot, like 10x more than the average of all aircraft (including helicopters). you're more likely to survive a helicopter crash than a Cessna crash.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pmiller2 8y ago

> The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. Are you sure about that? I'm willing to bet that for each crashed vehicle, there are far fewer people on average on each helicopter than in the average airplane.

endymi0n 8y ago
The number might be right but misleading in a way. Fixed wing commercial aircraft tend to have a LOT of passengers, while helicopters usually have just a handful of them. I‘d wager the factor on average load is about 50-100x – which is then also the rate at which fixed-wing aircraft crash less per operational hour. Crashes will just kill many more people, which skews the stats.
- asynchronous13 8y ago
  No, it's the low passenger count airplanes that really drive the statistics. In 50 years, there's been 30 crashes of 747s that resulted in loss of life. They are crazy safe. As a comparison, there are more than 200 crashes of Cessna 172 aircraft each year. In 2013 there were more than 1200 small plane crashes resulting in 350+ deaths, but zero large commercial aircraft accidents (in 2009, a 50-passenger plane crashed killing all onboard. There were no 50+ person crashes from 2009-2013) So yes, large scale aircraft are crazy safe and crash less. But small scale airplanes are worse than helicopters.
asynchronous13 8y ago
That was the data as of 2009. Helicopters do crash more frequently than airplanes (on the order of 30% more crashes per flight hour). Part of that is due to how and when helicopters are used. Flying next to 500,000 Volt power lines is dangerous. When the coast gaurd is plucking someone out of the ocean, they use a helicopter, not an airplane. And people don't fall off boats when the weather is nice. There are no helicopters comparable to a 747 as far as passenger count goes. So from that perspective you're right. But a 747 is also crazy safe and barely contributes to the average accident rate. The small 2-10 seat airplanes are the ones that crash a lot, like 10x more than the average of all aircraft (including helicopters). you're more likely to survive a helicopter crash than a Cessna crash.