Quite the opposite: you don't read about most sensor failures except in tweets "grr flight delayed again". In other words, malfunctions happen and are dealt with, that's non-news by definition. Saying "there's this one case on the news, therefore it's the only one observed" misrepresents the data entirely.

Really? Aircraft crashes are staggeringly rare. For the most part they are caused by the pilots of those aircraft.

I haven't read too much into it but I suspect this system was part of an envelope protection system designed to stop the pilots from being able to fly outside of the aircraft's performance limits. Once a fix is applied I'm sure this system will save many more aircraft than it harms.

Nitpick: Aircraft crashes aren't actually that rare, but Commercial Scheduled aircraft crashes are very rare. If you buy plane tickets you're far more likely to die driving to the airport than in a plane crash. But if your friend takes you for a fun trip in their Cessna that's a different story.

General Aviation is dangerous the same way private automobiles are dangerous. The operators take silly risks, they lack advanced skills, corners are cut on maintenance, procedures are not followed correctly. They usually have just one engine (if it fails this may be survivable but it's not good) one pilot (who doesn't need to be as fit and healthy as a commercial pilot, nor as well trained) and they aren't required to file a flight plan, which means they may not really even have a plan A let alone plan B.

I think it was clear I was talking about commercial aviation but to lend some balance to your post let me address some of the points.

General aviation aircraft operate in completely different circumstances. Using shorter, sometime grass, runways without the benefits of instrument landing systems. Usually outside of the ATC system.

The general aviation fleet is generally ageing. 30+ year old aircraft are not at all uncommon.

They have one engine; however it is about 2 steps below a lawnmower in terms of mechanical complexity. So long as it receives a fair supply of fuel stoppages are very rare.

I don't think you can make any connection between a lack of flight plan and the safety of a flight, other than perhaps that the search and rescue team might have a better chance of finding you if the worst happens.

There are plenty of non-commercial pilots who aspire to a standard of piloting which are at or above the level of commercial pilots (consider display pilots).

All in all, the level of safety in general aviation is roughly similar to that of riding a motorcycle.

>I don't think you can make any connection between a lack of flight plan and the safety of a flight

Part of proper flight plans are taking the steps to mark out your emergency procedures and landing places for failures in several portions of the trip, including a few different failures during takeoff. Sure, it might just be "Turn into that field there and cross your fingers", but you've at least thought about it and planned before hand

Last time I run over Brazilian statistics, being a random person inside a plane was about as dangerous as being a random person inside a bus (what is safer than a car).

There are two large features of that data. First there is the fact that scheduled fights carry more people than the other kinds, pushing the overall average into the "safe" region. Second, there is very wide difference between kinds of flight, where agricultural aviation can be more dangerous than riding a motorcycle in heavy transit.

Hi, I work in airworthiness. You should educate yourself on the facts because you are way out of your lane here.