[Sutripta]

Wasn't range (not enough) a problem for the Hondajet for American customers? Or has it been extended?

[V.Narayan]

Honda did improve the range on paper from 1223 nautical mile {nm} to 1437 nm with 4 passengers. They built in some streamlining, weight reduction of ~45 kgs and maximum take off weight increase of ~50 kgs. An improvement. In USA these are adequate ranges if your market is regional. The above ranges are the typical NBAA figures, designed for marketing, quoted to the last nm! 1200 to 1400 is more real world and even with that you are cutting it fine.

[am1m]

Are smaller planes significantly riskier than large commercial flights?

Was reading an article about Emiliano Sala, the footballer who died in a plane crash and several references were made in the article about the wisdom of flying a small, single-engine plane over the English Channel in unpredictable weather.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by am1m

Are smaller planes significantly riskier than large commercial flights? Was reading an article about Emiliano Sala, the footballer who died in a plane crash and several references were made in the article about the wisdom of flying a small, single-engine plane over the English Channel in unpredictable weather.

Million dollar question and very hard to answer. There is a difference between a smaller plane and taking a flight in a smaller plane. The semantics possibly are lost on the bereaved. A small single engine prop aircraft (categorized as General Aviation) that is well equipped with navigation aids, like the Cirrus SR20, is not inherently less safe than a commercial jet liner like say the Boeing 777. The magnitude of the forces of wind and weather are so vast that for them a 240 foot B777 is as much a tooth pick as a 26 foot long Cirrus SR20. The difference when in deep weather or a rapidly changing situation comes from having a second engine and presence of the second pilot. Lack of both is, in my opinion, a contributory factor to the higher accident rate in General Aviation.

Also in General Aviation there could be sloppier standards of maintenance while in a large commercial airline there is a reasonably high degree of assurance of the standard being maintained. General Aviation pilots may rise up in disagreement but commercial pilots get a lot more flying hours each year which adds in its own way to that valued intangible called experience.

Some data - 2017 was a year of zero fatalities in commercial aviation across the globe. In the same year, in USA alone there were 346 fatalities in general aviation.

Between a twin-engine two-pilot and generously equipped (with avionics) Honda Jet, or other business jet, and a B777 the gap of safety is very very narrow if any at all.

[Sting]

Originally Posted by am1m

Are smaller planes significantly riskier than large commercial flights?

Was reading an article about Emiliano Sala, the footballer who died in a plane crash and several references were made in the article about the wisdom of flying a small, single-engine plane over the English Channel in unpredictable weather.

I'm based out of Channel Islands and being close to the General Aviation sector here I followed this incident quite closely. As respect to the aviator and his family I'll skip commenting on the reasons for the crash.

Cross country flights from Jersey/Guernsey to UK or France are quite common even for single engine piston aircraft. Development of technology, improved training and navigation aids, light sport aircraft that are reliable and cheaper to run, dependable engines like the Rotax 912 have all made GA more accessible and affordable. A Cirrus 20/22, Tecnam 2008/2010 can easily handle channel crossings and PPL aspirants in the Channel Islands regularly fly solo cross country to France and back. As is the case with the notorious weather in UK, the only hiccup is that VFR pilots are at the mercy of the weather gods who are quite temperamental!

I think at least for the foreseable future commercial airlines will continue to maintain their safer records, not just because of type of aircraft they use but also because of the higher and more stringent regulations, enforcement, training invesment, maintenance schedules and the entire ecosystem of infrastructure available to them.

This does not mean GA/Light Sport aircraft are inherently more dangerous. If they are made to operate within their performance boundaries, with the right training and maintenance they can be as safe, if not more, than aircrafts maintained by a commercial airline.

Cheers,
Sting