how safe are these aircrafts

[Antoninus]

Thanks

Thank GLS and Topbunk for the recent answers. They appear like words of kindness in a world of brutes...
I knew air density was significant but not that significant. I'll try to refresh that post of mine.

1- Obstacle clearance requirements. Does it mean that in this particular configuration (full load) on a hot an humid day the A/C won't be able to clear that building, or those trees, at the end of the R/W? Or those hills, a bit further?
2- ATC requirements. Does it mean the ATC's say the plane does not meet the criteria to be cleared for T/O? (I'm getting good at all those acronyms..)
3 - Air density. Indeed. Hot and humid as we were told. Actually in the case of Denver it's indeed hot, high and humid.
4 /5- Conditions and lenght of R/W surface. Denver. Modern, big airport, excellent runways.
6 - Position of CG. Dunno about that one either. I suppose there is a procedure to load baggage into an A/C?
7 - Fuel. Not in this case. An ATR 42 has a range sufficient enough to go from Denver to Cody and back several times before running out of gas.
Alternate destinations between Denver and Cody?
I dunno... The prairie?
Actually no, there's an airfield half way. Can't remember the name. the first time I flew there we stopped over to drop mail and some freight.
The result is still that an ATR 42 fully loaded, but not exceeding the limits could not take off from Denver airport on a clear july day, because of a "hot and humid condition" and that no one decided that on a whim. There must have been a reason.
And that reason, according to your answers is that the plane just couldn't take off in the fully loaded configuration.
Maybe a few more square feet of wing area would help?
I don't question the safety of that plane. However I don't recall planes of the same type (turboprop/high wing) encountering that kind of de-icing problems. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll check on places like Fokker..
Could it be that ATR rushed things a bit, testwise, in order to market their "product" faster than the competition?
Naaah. That wouldn't be nice wouldn't it?
BTW, in several of these incidents, it is thanks to the pilots' skill, steady nerves and good training that no one died. They actually fought with a flatiron that wouldn't even fall down straight.
Actually I am pretty sure that all modern planes are extremely safe to fly and that includes the ATR.
Until the de-icing flaws were fixed, that is...
BTW MerchantVenturer I never flew in the ATR 72 series and since it's a bigger aircraft I suppose it's not so much a roller coaster ride as in the 42 series. Trust me on that, each time I flew these things I was too busy with my stomach being stuck in between my ears at regular intervals to be able to enjoy the scenery. The only other turboprop I ever flew in was a big Vickers Viscount, between London and Paris, shortly after the 100 Years War, so it doesn't count.
I can't speak about the ATR's direct competitors, I never flew in any but I suspect all high wing twin turboprops of that size produce the same roller coaster ride.
Nowadays the problem is solved. In Europe, I mostly drive or ride the train when it's less than a thousand Kms. The countryside is generally nice; when driving I can "land" whenever I feel like, eat properly or even extremely well, and stretch my legs and my arms without hitting the person next to me. It also saves me the nightmarish airport scene, the wait, the waiting lines, the security checks and the very lowly status of "pax".. I don't have to take my shoes off either.
I certainly don't consider it a waste of time.
Now, after shooting down, the ATR in flames, I'd like to praise the 747. Where do I go for that?