The higher accident rate in general aviation is due to a lot of factors, but almost certainly not because flying a large jet is 'easier'.
The big differences are: discipline, training, maintenance, process and a safety-first attitude.
The big differences are: discipline, training, maintenance, process and a safety-first attitude.
That's not really what the author asserted. He said that flying a large jet with autopilot+two human pilots is easier than flying a small plane with just one human pilot. That probably is true, though I agree that it is hardly the only factor.
Riding a bike is probably easier than driving a car but if you never ridden a bike you’re not likely to just be able to pick one up and go with it.
All my kids disagree with you.
I'd say that's incredibly rare.
Learning how to cycle at a much later age is far harder.
We did that bit by removing the pedals and lowering the seat. Once they can cruise then stick the pedals on, adjust the seat, and they're away ... but that's not just "getting on a bike", that's a progression of training.
The thread parent said "never picked up a bike", you transmuted that to "used a training bike and then picked up a full one".
Not pertinent to the thread but the flaw in this technique (balance bike) with my kids has been they learn to brake with their feet and that instinct is hard to break.
When things do go wrong, you still need a pilot experienced in the way that aircraft works or non-problems can turn into a catastrophe. AF447 was the latest reminder of that... so you are right that the amount of skill required is greater.
I wonder if someone used to simpler aircraft might have done better at identifying the problem in AF447. Any pilot should know that given full power, an unknown airspeed, a nose-up attitude and a high descent rate that the airplane is probably in a stall.
Indeed, once the more senior pilot (who flew light aircraft) was on the bridge, it didn’t take him long to figure out what was going on... and once he did his ability to think coherently broke down because he knew they were in a high speed stall and probably going to die any moment.
Anecdote: In my software flight sim experience (I know I am not a pilot), I've had a better initial success rate with the heavier planes than I have with the light ones. Did I fluke it? Probably. But then again, I've learned some tricks on a bicycle that are widely seen as more difficult to learn than learning to ride a bike but I don't think they were that hard to learn in hindsight.
Anyway, we are so into hypothetical territory now that I'm not going to further embarrass myself with more comment on this.
Is learning two or three new programming languages for a programmer harder than learning a single new programming language as a novice?
It's easier to learn to fly a small aircraft as a beginner. Once you're an expert, it's easier to use the automation and process tools at your disposal in an enterprise aircraft.
In the jet world, multiengine ops become easier again, as the airplane is less trying to kill you in the event of a failure (much lower drag from a failed engine, no runaway prop concerns, less yaw from asymmetric thrust) and you have massive amounts of surplus power at low altitude. There are situations in a jet where you can lose an engine on the takeoff roll, even prior to lifting the nosewheel, and for the safest course of action to be to continue the takeoff, take the problem airborne, and consider a return or divert in the air. (Failures after V1 ["takeoff decision speed"] and before Vr ["rotate"].) There are no such times in the piston or (edit to add: light) turboprop world.
The safety rates and reasons are frequently debated. As a pilot who frequently flies my family around and is strongly disinterested in making the numerator part of the statistics, I read every NTSB fatal, every crash of the types I fly, and most of the serious crashes of other types.
My thoughts are that the pilots are, by a wide margin, the weakest link in general aviation (non-military, non-commercial) piston singles, making poor decisions on fuel, weather, and other dispatch-related topics. I'd bet that 3/4ths of the piston single fatals have pilot or dispatch (also pilot) as the root cause, not engine or mechanical.
Accelerate-go calculations do not necessarily mean that engine failures before rotation are to be taken aloft. My 58P has accelerate-go charts published (they're not pretty at heavy weights on high/hot days). Nevertheless, any engine failure with the nosewheel on the ground is an abort/RTO.
The DA-42 I can't find any reference for V1 below Vr and to take an engine failure prior to Vr aloft. That was looking in the QRH and checklists for the aircraft. I see both specified at 75 knots and the checklist response for engine failure on the roll is only the rejected takeoff instructions.
It seems so easy: when one engine fails you still have the other left to power the aircraft, right? People often forget that the prop on the stalled engine creates a huge amount of drag, like a stuck paddle on a canoe. You have to compensate for the drag, feather the prop (adjust the angle of the blades to minimize drag) and adjust for that again. When you have sufficient altitude that can be done, but on takeoff or landing you'd have to be a really cool cat to pull it off...
As for pilot error: I think that number is actually a lot closer to 100%. This also rings true for car accidents, and I bet most planes are maintained a lot better than cars...