how safe are these aircrafts

[riot air]

hello,

I am a regular passenger of ATR 72-212 as well as ATR 42-320.

The flight normally takes about 1.5 hours (not sure of the distance( at 22,000 feet, and though so far nothing really scary has happened, I still feel uncomfortable flying in either one.

The aircraft is so small, turbulence-like incidents occur everytime. One would hear constant engine noise through out the flight, but sometimes the noise level is reduced or completely gone for few seconds and I get really nervous when that happens.

Are these aircrafts safe at all ?

thanks.

[surely not]

You know it has always amazed me how the Authorities world wide have cleared these death traps for flight.
I mean, you'd think that they would at least put them through some tests to find out if they fly properly and that the makers of these aircraft would have to conduct an exhaustive and expensive flight test programme before they enter service!

As for the turbulence well obviously aircraft shud only fly on days when there is no wind at all therby making for a nice smooth flight.

To all you kamikaze crew flying the many hundreds of these aircraft world wide, pray tell how do you dare work on them, do you not care about your lives??





Sorry if this is interpreted as being sarcastic :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[radeng]

The most dangerous part of travelling by air is the drive to/from the airport. The chances of the vehicle being unsafe are, in most countries, much higher than the aircraft being unsafe. In some countries, you can almost guarantee the vehicle isn't very safe.....

[Kolibear]

Flying is very safe. Crashing, on the other hand, tends to be very bad for your health. We try not to crash.

[patdavies]

I thought that in the PC world of today, crashing wasn't allowed.

"Uncontrolled landing" is surely the correct phrase:rolleyes:

[419]

Or, in engineers lingo

"an airframe-ground interface"

[EDDNHopper]

This is the "Passengers&SLF" section and the question posted is perfectly reasonable for a person who is not too comfortable flying in no-jet aircraft. No need to be sarcastic, ironic or whatever.

riot air, think of turbulence like pot holes in a road. When you drive a bad road in your car, you might get a bump here and a push there, nothing more. Driving a Mercedes, you might not notice much, but driving a small Polo or Fiesta you will certainly feel and hear the rough road. It´s a bit like that in aeroplanes. Air is not smooth. Aeroplanes are made to fly through not so smooth air, and although it might feel scary, it is very, very rarely dangerous. Huge airliners are a bit like your Mercedes, and the ATRs like your Polos or Fiestas.

The noise level is quite high in the ATR cabin. When the noise suddenly decreases (which is normal once you´ve reached cruising altitude, and in various phases of the approach) you´re bound to notice these differences.

The ATR is a safe aircraft.

[Milt]

Surely the closest things to being aircrafts would be hovercrafts!!

[riot air]

hello EDDNHopper,

thanks, your post answered my question.

In the country I am in now, maintenance is always an issue. Genuine Spare parts for cars are scarce, and I wish that is not the case with aircrafts'

I know most of the pilots personally (local pilots, not expatriates), and they have tried to convince me that nothing I should worry about. Oh well.

still, thanks again...

[Antoninus]

HA!
I got a lot of flak on another forum for writing that the ATR was a piece of cheap junk. I am glad to discover I ain't the only one of that opinion.
At the begining of its career, the ATR encountered many problems due to a faulty design of the de-icing system. It caused a couple of deadly crashes, several serious incidents and some quarelling between the FAA and the builder, a french-italian consortium which began, as usual, by denying there was a problem..
Meanwhile the incidents continued.
If you go to the ATR site you'll notice the accent is put on the "cheap" aspect of that plane. Cheap to build, cheap to operate, cheap to fix and easy to sell since it comes in many versions. But basically it's a cargo plane with passengers seats slapped inside.
I flew in several ATR's. In all occurrences, the flight was either uncomfortable (Noise, cramped conditions, VERY bumpy ride) or downright scary.
On two occurrences I flew an ATR from Denver, Co. to Cody, Wo.
The first time was a hellish ride around huge storm clouds. The cabin crew bravely tried to give us drinks, half crouched in the low fuselage, and naturally that's just after that that we hit the biggest "pothole" of the flight that made us drop at least 100 feet. My orange juice ended partly on the (low) ceiling and mostly on my pants. Some people got scared.
Upon landing in Cody I asked the pilot what kind of kite this piece of junk was. He smiled at me with that "pilot smile" and said: "It's an ATR, it's a pilot's plane".
-"Well, I replied it sure ain't a passenger's plane"..
The second time was on the same route. Shortly before departing we were informed that half of the luggage had to stay in Denver because, due to "hot and humid" conditions, the aircraft would be too heavy to fly..
Hot and humid in Denver in july???
Then how do we describe weather conditions, for instance, in Manila, Philippines, in august??
Before that I didn't really consider Denver to be a tropical city..
I asked a stward whether there was excess baggage and he said no, it's just the hot and humid weather.
The next time I rented a car in Denver and DROVE to cody...
So, to sum it up, the ATR is a safe plane provided you don't fly when it's too cold or when it's too hot...
Well, moderately hot. That day in Denver was definitely not a sweltering day.
This plane is not designed to carry passengers comfortably and safely, it's designed to be cheap. And cheap it is.

think of turbulence like pot holes in a road.
Indeed, however, when you hit a pothole with your Polo, you do not fly a couple of miles up in the air. See? That's the problem..
:E

[toomuchradiations]

dear Antoninus/journalist from paris,

You are very ignorant in the field of aviation and you have no understanding of how to judge the safety of a plane.
You should refrain from making such statements as we do refrain from commenting politics or climate change topics, etc..

the ATR is an extremely safe plane!

[TFlyguy]

OK - no doubt someone will prove me wrong but ......

I believe the icing problem has been sorted

If its too hot to carry the luggage that is an airline scheduling/purchasing problem not the aircrafts problem

If an aircraft hits an airpocket, falls 100ft and stays together - in my book thats a good aircraft!

Oh and you dont pluralise aircraft by adding an "s" - 1 aircraft 2 aircraft etc

[Antoninus]

Yes, I believe the problem was fixed...
But there was a problem.

http://www.eetronics.com/icing_air_crashs.htm (http://)

As for being ignorant of flying well, not totally. I know the basics, like what "hot and humid" conditions means in terms of lift. I also know that Denver airport is at something like 3000 ft and that adds up.
However I seriously doubt that taking off at full load from Denver on a clear day in july qualifies as "extreme" conditions.
Toomuchrads, you are a professional pilot, I suppose and you know far more than I about ATR's.
So I admit the ATR is "a pilot's plane" and a extremely safe plane. But trust me on that, it really doesn't look that way from a passenger's point of view...
Now seriously could someone tell me what happened in Denver on that hot and humid day?
Was it that the aircraft really couldn't take off or was it that it would have been too slow --and costly in fuel-- to reach cruise level in these flying conditions?
Again, according to the crew, there was no excess load.

[toomuchradiations]

an aircraft can be limited in its take off weight by many factors.

among which are:

1) obstacle clearence requirements

2) local ATC requirements

3) air density

4) conditions of R/W surface

5) length of R/W

6) position of CG

7) how much fuel must be carried to reach destination and comply with alternate destinations' requirements


so, as you can appreciate the hot and humid day may be even not important if compared to many of the other limiting factors.

Passengers may not fancy the ATR because of its "visible propellers" but, as an airline pilot, i can ensure you that these planes are very,very safe indeed!

in addition to this, dear antoninus/journalist, you are not even qualified enough to mention a "loss of 100 ft" due to turbulence as you don't have altimeters in front of you nor can imply that a (relatively) "economic plane" is junk as it is not.
It's called "fuel efficiency" mate and that is achieved by the use of those "visible propellers" which are part of a very efficient and extremely safe TURBO PROP/ JET ENGINE.

[MerchantVenturer]

I have flown as a pax on Aurigny's ATR 72s on several occasions in recent years.

I think it is a marvellous aircraft and I never have the slightest worry when flying in one.

On a clear day on flights such as Bristol to Guernsey it beats a jet every time, with beautiful views of the countryside and English Channel slowly unfolding below.

My wife is not a keen flyer but has never expressed any concern at flying in an ATR rather than a bigger jet.

I could more easily understand someone not liking turbo props as a genre because of the propellers, the extra noise and less cabin space, but to pick on one type (the ATR) is surprising to me.

[TopBunk]

Ant.....

As for being ignorant of flying well, not totally. I know the basics, like what "hot and humid" conditions means in terms of lift. I also know that Denver airport is at something like 3000 ft and that adds up.

KDEN is actually 5431ft amsl (above mean sea level).

In July the temperature will frequently top out at 30deg C or 86F, giving a denisty altitude of over 8000ft.

The degradation on aircraft performance is very marked in those conditions - but then I suspect you don't really want to know that anyway!

BTW it is hot and high that matters more than hot and humid.

As to the ATR specifics, I can't comment, but what I CAN say is that these conditions affect all aircraft to a degree.

KPHX at 42degC in a 747-400 even at 1300ft amsl, equates to a density altitude of about 6000ft - a considerable consideration for an intercontinental flight to Europe. Start talking then about Bogota at 8400ft and 18deg C, or Mexico at 7500ft amsl and 23deg C and you are really talking about aircraft envelopes!

In the meantime, do your research and you may discover the truth!

[GLS 62]

Antoninus

The plains the western part of the United States can produce a very bumpy ride on hot summer day. The lighter the aircraft, the bumper the ride. Even the different refective colors of the ground can produce thermals of different velocity. Flying over plowed fields and fields of green can give you a jolt when passing from one to the other.

This area can also produce quite violent storms. This area is the only place in the U.S. that I've seen or hear of toss hail. Hail that is thrown out of the top of a storm and comes down several miles away from the storm.

I remember in the 1960's talking to a Central Airlines pilot. He got caught in a T-Storm going in to KAMA, Amarillo, Texas. The rate of climb indicator showed 3000 feet per minute climb in the updraft and the reverse in the downdraft. This was in level flight in a DC3.

Turbo-props and jet aircraft usually fly high enough where rough rides are not common. When they occur most passengers are alarmed.

[Antoninus]

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?

[TightSlot]

Antoninus The ATR did experience problems with icing (The NTSB report may be found here (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/aar9601.pdf) and a response by the manufacturer here (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/aar9602.pdf) (Both are .pdf files)

My understanding is that the issue is now resolved, and that safe operations of this type are now normal. It may be that the aircraft operator chooses to operate the type on a route that is inappropriate (in terms of weight/performance) at certain times of year and under certain weather conditions, and that would surely be a commercial issue to take up with the airline concerned.

The ride quality for customers on a relatively small aircraft, flying at lower altitudes will often tend to be inferior to that of a modern jet at high altitude - Sad, but true.

BTW - If you're lookinf for an arena to praise the 747, then this would be the ideal place, and I'd be the first to agree with you!
;)

[Antoninus]

Thanks for the input paxboy and tightslot..
And may Bokonon protect you..
Also: is it true that high wing planes are generally less comfortable to fly than low wings?

Ah.. The Jumbo.. Big plane, so big that you almost forget you're in a plane.. So big that when you fly through those big mid-atlantic turbulences halfway between the US and Europe, you barely feel the bumps.
And so on..
Now that is what I call a passenger plane.
But there another thing I discovered lately, to my total amazement, actually as I was watching on the net videos of "hairy" landings. That thing moves like a fighter plane!
One of these videos was shot at the dreaded HKG Kai-Tak airport --the old one. It's a KAL Jumbo. Some of you here must have seen that.
Here it is...

http://www.lindauer-fly.ch/movies.htm (http://)

then click on "Korean Air Landung auf Hong Kong Kai Tak"

Now, how exactly do you do achieve an aerobatic figure like that with an aircrfat weighing about 300 000 pounds???:eek

[PAXboy]

Antoninus One of the problems faced by operators of turbo-props in hot and high conditions is not knowing how many pax are going to show up. The flight may not be fully booked but some folks do a 'walk up' booking and have only briefcases. This might mean that the a/c departs full but no overloaded for the conditions. But if those last couple of pax had big cases - it might put them over limits. The carrier will have historic data telling them how many times in a month of the hot season this is a problem. They will try to balance the times they have to offload pax or bags as a commercial decision.

My nephew was a Captain on the Jetstream 41 in South Africa for several years and had these problems almost every day. That a/c is a low winged 20 seater turbo prop and until the pax showed up - you had no idea how much of a problem you would have. On some sectors at some stages of the year, the booking system was set to not allow a full number of passengers, as they would hit the weight limits and it was better to run the flight with reduced capacity than not at all. This still gave problems if the system had not been set correctly and all the seats HAD been sold!! Or, on days when the temperature was much higher than expected and so they reached temperature limitations sooner in the year. To combat this, some of the a/c had a special booster system for take-off, that used additional special fuel (Water/Meth mix) to increase the SHP (Shaft Horse Power) for departure. In the longer term, this causes extra wear and tear on the engine but is fully certified and monitored of course.

Lastly, although they carried very little freight an extra box or two could cause a problem. Not least as some of the ground staff did not fully understand the principle that an a/c is limited by WEIGHT rather than by VOLUME. In other words, if the loader could see that there was still spare volume in the baggage comparment - then they would keep stuffing boxes and cases into it until it was full. :uhoh: So when knowing that they would be weight limited, on the walkaround, one duty was to check how much 'extra' had been loaded without the pilot knowing!

The ATR is larger than the J41 but is subject to the same problems. As, indeed, is the mighty 747. For there is always a limit to the weight that may be lifted. At Heathrow (my local field) the problem is slight as the field is only about 100' amsl and usually cool. Although the day I flew Concorde, we had a problem as the temp hit 100F (37.7C).

But a simple example: leaving from LHR for Johannesburg, a 744 will (typically) be rolling for 45/50 seconds before rotation. On the return flight, when departing JNB, they will be rolling for 60/65 seconds and the runway has to be much longer to compensate for the air being both thinner and warmer. Also, JNB is at 5,500' (approx) and temps up to 35C in the middle of the day. So the long hauls leave early in the morning or in the early evening. The jet engine produces thrust by the differential temperature between the air going into the front and what it has reached by the brief second that it emerges from the tail pipe. The turbo-prop is subject to the same factors. (I sit to be corrected on any technical detail as I am Pax not crew!)

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[riot air]

"Lastly, although they carried very little freight an extra box or two could cause a problem. Not least as some of the ground staff did not fully understand the principle that an a/c is limited by WEIGHT rather than by VOLUME."

hi PAXboy,

I think none of the ground staffs here at our airports fully understand the principle you mentioned above.

I could, though never tried, pay the ground staffs an extra money as little as USD 10 for a normally USD 50 worth of excess luggage.

NOw I remember, there is a very old manual-scale used to weigh the baggage at c/in counter, and my golf bag weighs differently every time I check in.

Thanks for sharing the info, I had never thought of it. I will bring up this issue to the airlines manager, hopefully they understand this simple principle.

[Momo]

Boeing publishes WW stats on western jet aircraft at http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

The F28, 707 and DC8 come out as the least safe aircraft still in service.

You can go into aircraft types individually on aviation safety network. The turboprop stats are at http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/index.php?type=prop

To make fair comparisons, you need to compare aircraft by numbers of take/offs and landings, or something similar, which I am not doing below.

It does not say how many of each type are in service. There have been 6 ATR42 accidents with fatalaties. One was a suicide with just one pilot on board. One was an overrun on landing, with just one fatality.

There have been five ATR72 accidents with fatalaties.

The Dehavilland Dash 7 and 8 have had four each. The Fokker 50 has had 3, and the F27 has had 17.

The Boeing 737/200 has had 49 accidents with fatalities.

Momo

[seacue]

Momo, number of accidents w/ fatalities isn't very meaningful uintil one realizes how many planes of that type are in service. IIRC at least ten times as many 737/200s were built than Dash 7s. One hardly ever sees a Dash 7 these days but there are still a number of old 737/200s in mainline USA service. Didn't Southwest just retire their last one?

Denver can be hot and high, but very seldom humid. It was said that United, which has a very big presence at DEN, was unhappy that the earliest 737s couldn't do DEN to Chicago on a hot day with a full load. That was from the old DEN airport. The new airport has much longer runways than the old one had when the first 737s came out.

[Momo]

re: previous

Yes, as I point out, the comparison is not fair.

On the hot and high discussion: South African, for example, does New York to Joburg non-stop, but has to stop to refuel going the other way, because they cannot take off with a full load of fuel. Of course the fuel weighs much more than the passengers plus baggage, which would not be the case on ATR routes shorter than about 1300 km.

Momo

[10secondsurvey]

Just to follow on from earlier points. I as a punter really enjoy flying with props. For instance, i have flown on the rather spiffing Dash Q400 from flybe, and they are great. Some older or smaller turboprops are not so good, as usually the airlines try to queeze in too many passengers.

I just wonder about budget airlines though - wouldn't it make financial sense for some routes to use aurcraft like Q400's for example Glasgow or Edinburgh to belfast - for which EZY uses a 737 - for a tiny flight. Are the turboprops (modern ones) not much more thrifty on really short hops?

Anyway - the Q400's they use at flybe are great, and the legroom is not too bad (but not brilliant - better than EZY).

[Momo]

I think load factor is the most important. Fuel per passenger mile is considerably less on a full modern 737 or A319 than on a full Q400. So, if you are able to get the large aircraft reasonably full, the economics work. If you can only get a Q400-size passenger list for the flight, it is of course more economical to fly that.

Momo

[ATR Operator]

"One would hear constant engine noise through out the flight, but sometimes the noise level is reduced or completely gone for few seconds and I get really nervous when that happens. "


What you are probably experiencing is the pilot altering the angle of the propellors during the flight. This causes a noise or frequency change. On the ATR 72 200 and in fact on the ATR 300 it is common to bring the propellors from 86% NP in the climb to 77% NP for the cruise. It is also an ATR requirement to alter the angle of the propellors when entering icing conditions. So in effect you may have a few changes depending on actual conditions experienced on the route. Having the propellors at 77% reduces the noise and enhances pax comfort.

As for the safety, I've been flying both these aircraft for a time now and have had no worrying incidents with the aircraft yet. They are as safe or as dangerous as the next aircraft in my opinion!!

[reverserunlocked]

Interesting to note from the Boeing research the next most 'dangerous' aircraft after the 707, DC8 and F28 is........

The MD11.

Bit worrying when you think the above aircraft have almost exclusively ended up in third world operator's hands whereas the MD11 is still in use by airlines like KLM and a host of US cargo carriers and is still up there.

Never did like the old deathstar...:{

[West Coast]

Antoninus

For clarification, when was this/these series of flights between DEN/COD?

[bealine]

Of course, there is one very big danger of looking at statistics:

The statistics do not look at the reasons for fatalities! The entire Douglas DC10 fleet worldwide was grounded following the American Airlines crash at Chicago (ORD) costing the aviation industry billions. The world's press unfairly labelled it a "death ship" and this undoubtedly led to the Douglas Airplane Company going bust and being absorbed into Boeing's giant maw!

In reality, American Airlines had taken shortcuts, in the name of manpower/cost savings, with the procedures for engine replacement - yet Douglas never managed to sell another DC10!!!

The ATR is a perfectly safe, aircraft. Uncomfortable, yes (but then, a "T" type tail will always cause more motion at the rear of the aircraft than a normal tail plan) but certainly not unsafe!

[Momo]

Well, the DC-10 accident was quickly followed by the Turkish Airlines one over Paris where a poorly designed freight door opened in flight.

Momo

For the Denver-Colorado Springs hop, I remember one of the accidents was in 1991. A work colleague died in it.

Given that a friend also died in the SR111 disaster, I certainly abandoned all "It could never happen to me" thinking.

Momo

[MarkD]

I think the MD-11 killed (McDonnell) Douglas, you'll find, when fuel burn was significantly beyond what was promised.

The merger with Boeing, among other things, removed the last American widebody alternative and thus drove Congress into the arms to Boeing in the post 9/11 KC767 scandal when the Defence Science Office had recommended expanding the KC-10 fleet - funny that.

As for the safety or otherwise of the ATR fleets - the ATR order book has been turning over very quickly compared to our local Q400 competitor and has outlasted the S2000 so the market thinks they're worth it.

[riot air]

I flew in an ATR again this morning, and all seemed to be OK.

and while cruising, I saw another ATR flying probably on same altitude but in good distant, I suppose. From that distant, it sized as small as a pencil.

However, is ATR equipped with that traffic/anti-collision device ?

[SamGuest]

You want to be daring? Fly Binter Canarias from one airport to another in the Canary Islands.. ;)

I didn't know what i was gettiny myself into when i boarded their ATR-72... and i'll safely say now, i'll never fly on one again! i respect they are safe, but i like to feel safe ;)

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/668348/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/665692/L

[TightSlot]

Sam - Can you tell us what it is that happened to make you feel endangered? It is not readily apparent from your post

[Lemon Grass]

<However, is ATR equipped with that traffic/anti-collision device?>

Yes - ATRs are equipped with TCAS

[Victor Meldrew]

I agree with SamGuest. They may be safe but I like to feel safe. I've been a regular with BMI on LBA-GLA, but on the occasions an ATR was substituted for the usual EMB, the PAX were not happy!

When it was a regular occurrence a year or so back, I switched to EMA until the 145s returned- a longer drive, but somehow I felt safer on the M1 in rush hour than in the ATR!

Apart from some "exciting" landings at LBA in high wind, the 145's convey a lot more comfort and confidence then the ATR (see associated thread re the Jungle Jet, seem like both the PAX and Pilots like them.

Antoninus quote;
============
"Ah.. The Jumbo.. Big plane, so big that you almost forget you're in a plane.. So big that when you fly through those big mid-atlantic turbulences halfway between the US and Europe, you barely feel the bumps."
============

Worst turbulence I have ever felt was on a VS 747 off the eastern coast of the US - incredible.

[Piltdown Man]

Unfortunately, do to the nature of modern society (ie. lack of education - especially in the sciences, modern management practices and the manner and method of media reporting) and man's basic make-up - passengers become the group of people least able to determine safety or otherwise of an aircraft.

The facts of life in the First World are this: No government, operator or crew will knowingly allow any aircraft to depart if they feel that it's safety is un-reasonably compromised. This does not mean that there is no risk, just an acceptable one. Yes, the quality of ride on a turboprop aircraft is not generally as high as a jet - but it's level of safety (or exposure to risk) is no different.

Living is not risk-free. There are only two certainties: Death and Taxes.

[Ace Rimmer]

Flown it (as in drove it not rode it):

ATR42-500 and ATR72-500: Lovely to fly hand flew most of the time (was for a magazine article) really very forgiving and a lot of fun to fly. The -500s have had a bit stiffening work done to the upper fuselage and have six blade props all of which makes for a reduction in vibration and noise. Only downsides - I'd like to see some nose wheel authority via the pedals (just the tiller on the ATRs) and you want to be careful you fly the nose wheel on on landing.

Dash 8-Q400: Again lot's of fun to fly bags of grunt and it goes like the provibial waste product off a exacvation implement. Had a few probs with realiability early on but I gather that's been pretty sorted now.

I've been told (by them that know) that the seat mile costs on the the 70 seaters (Q400/ATR72) are pretty much the same as the 737-3,4,7,800 so for routes where you can't fill a larger a/c they're just the job.
While fuel pricing stays where it is (Jet fuel is about 400% it's May 2001 price) the superior fuel economy of the turboprops will continue to make them attractive to airlines (no matter what the punters think!). The proff of the pudding...both ATR and Bombardier are shifting them at rates much much higher (almost twice) their most optmistic forecasts of just a few years ago.

Interestingly although the Saab 2000 is out of production they are rarer than hen's teeth on the second hand market (even with SWISS phasing out their fleet (they were the largest operator). Meanwhile, in the US there are more S340s (out of production for even longer) in airline service now than there were a year ago.

[paxcommuter]

I have a question, which may or may not be relevant.

I commute frequenty by air, and do around 2 sectors per week (out of about 6) on an ATR. Recently a report was published on an incident involving the airline I use where, as a matter of airline culture, it seems pilots had taken to reporting tech faults by word of mouth, rather than reporting in the tech log. The upshot was they flew several sectors with a fuel gauge problem and managed to come pretty close to running out of fuel.

http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=6875&lang=ENG&loc=1652

My problem with this incident is not the actions of the pilots, who are human beings and who have no desire to put themselves deliberately in danger, but rather the company culture putting pressure on people to cut costs and delays to the point where people are pressured into taking more risks.

My question is therefore related to the checks and balances that exist to counter this pressure. Is there any comeback from the various government and European aviation agencies against the company for this type of practice, or does it operate more on a principal that in good faith everybody in the industry will work always to improve safety in everything they do.

I know that under the current system, flying has become statistically, by a very long way, the safest way of travelling; however, my worry is that in the new climate of fierce competition, lower and lower ticket prices, and high fuel costs, the pressures are mounting to tip the balance the other way.

[PAXboy]

paxcommuter I presume that you have been following this thread? PPruNe (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189198)