Spend on safety gadgets? or better training!

[mary meagher]

The AAIB report gives a lot of attention to the danger presented by the rocket recovery system installed on the Sportscruiser that crashed and burned upside down in a ditch near Bute last year.

There were a number of irregularities installed on this aircraft, according to the report, which added to the overweight condition. Not to mention that the stall warning system had been deliberately disconnected.

All the safety devices that money can buy won't help poor management of the problem presented by an engine sputtering but not shutting down completely at low level.

But a change that must now be required is to clearly label the fact that any flying machine also carries a live rocket! and these labels must be very big, very clear, and must be readable rightside up or upside down, for the sake of those who try to save the occupants.

The rocket system and the parachute and the straps in this Sportscruiser were installed IN FRONT OF THE COCKPIT, behind the engine. Not what anyone would expect. Evidently the rocket did cook, and went straight through the cockpit and was found behind the wreckage. First responders were unaware until much much later that such hazard existed.

[9 lives]

Oh the better training Mary! Pilots need to have the confidence that was common decades ago to be able to fly the aircraft, and get back on the ground by doing so. I accept that for military and aerobatic aircraft, there is a greater risk of the aircraft becoming unflyable while you're up, but this is very uncommon for GA aircraft.

Well maintained, well flown GA aircraft nearly never abandon their pilot, why would their pilot abandon them? I do like the idea of the get of jail free parachute for one primary reason - a non pilot passenger can help themselves down, if the pilot becomes incapacitated - but that's happily very rare too.

I have seen a certain type of person who has the means to fill a plane with safety equipment, and then conduct themselves to a lesser demanding skills standard, thinking that the safety equipment will save them. Applying well developed and maintained skills will prevent that safety equipment being necessary nearly every time!

In my capacity as a volunteer firefighter, we have to be aware of things which will go bang, after the car has come to its stop. It is a lot more work, and slower now to cut a patient out of a car, as we first must strip quite a lot of interior panels, to find the airbags, so as not to cut through them when cutting a car apart. From my experience, this can add several minutes to an extrication. We take annual training to learn about new systems in cars, but I don't think we keep up. Imagine our surprise to learn that a certain brand of convertable has explosive roll bars, which pop up under specific accident conditions - it sure would be bad to be leaning over one, assisting a patient!

A plane I was responsible was fatally crashed by its pilot. It was carrying wing mounted atmospheric equipment, with included tiny lasers which, when energized, shone across a 1/2" gap. These bore the same "radiation" sticker that one would see on a laser pointer ('cause they about that intense). Well, the first responders parachuted in to this poor fellow, and happened across one of these probes first. Radiation!?!, we can't go near the plane! It was a fuss for a while, until they considered the actual danger = zero, there was no electric power. But, in fairness, the sticker did not say "when powered", so how would they know?

Military aircraft are suitably placarded for dangers to rescuers, and access points. I doubt that the proud owner of the half million dollar composite wonder is willing to accept warning labels all over it, but they would identify a possible hazard to rescuers....

[Pace]

Mary there is a saying " Always fly within your limits and the aircraft limits" The problem we are getting is pilots flying out of their limits and relying on the pilot aids to help them do so.

so maybe a new saying should state " The pilot should never exceed the aircraft limits but the aircraft limits should not exceed the pilots limits in how it is used"

Sadly that is happening more and more as pilot aids lure those pilots into areas they cannot handle without the aids

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think the impression that there are herds of incompetents flying their technologically advanced aircraft around totally dependent on the automatics, is vastly overblown.

A review of the GA accidents show a couple of dubious crashes where technology appears to have been used as a substitute for lack of skill, but the vast majority are same old, same old, Like:

-Pilot induced engine failures due carb ice or fuel mismangement

-Busted nosewheels caused by inept landing technique

-Poor judgement crashes like guys who try to takeoff an overloaded airplane from a too short strip

-Pressing on in obviously unsuitable weather

etc etc

In other words failing to maintain all the boring unsexy basic skills that should have been mastered before you get your PPL, is where the problems that cause most accidents reside.

[ChickenHouse]

Neither technical gadget, nor "better" (whatever that shall mean) training will solve the actual problem of fading pilot attention. It is no longer common to focus your brain on one thing to reach expertise, say piloting a plane, but to gamble with the universe and play buttonery on gadgets, i.e. How many VFR pilots spend more time looking at the iPad screen instead of looking outside and enjoy countryside flying? I recently even had one constantly reading messages and email while crossing over beautiful landscapes.

[Jonzarno]

Investing in equipment designed to enhance safety and situational awareness is a choice that anyone is free to make, and many of the things that people buy to achieve this greater safety have been shown to be very effective.

That said, just buying the kit without also investing in the appropriate training, and then maintaining currency, will just increase the chances that the investment in the equipment will be wasted. It's not an "either or" situation.

Regarding the point about BRS rockets, here's a link to advice for rescuers on how to deal with an undeployed BRS.

http://www.brsparachutes.com/files/brsparachutes/files/First%20Responders.pdf

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi All,

I'm sorry but I just do not like the BRS parachute system. It may be OK in the vast open expanses of the US Middle West or the Australian Outback, but in the built up and crowded UK or the mountainous or forested areas of Europe I think these things pose a danger, both to you and to people and property on the ground, and they just should not be legal. Once you fire that rocket you have lost all control and your future is a hostage to fortune.

In regard to pilots flying outside their own or their aircraft's limitations and the endless succession of accidents resulting from the same old causes, as listed by Big Pistons, I think current training does have a lot to answer for. Ground training in too may clubs consists of 'read all these books then sit all those exam papers and then if you pass the exams you'll know all you need to know'. This sort of 'training' is all too soon forgotten and is never revised or retested.

There is also, I suspect, a tendency for some private pilots, who have only learned their theory from reading the writings of Trevor Thom or Jeremy Pratt, to think that the risks they have read about are to some extent theoretical and can be ignored as long as you don't go too far. An attitude that suggests that they see little difference in regard to the management of risk between flying a Pa 28 and driving a motor car.

BP.

[Maoraigh1]

Is more currency not more important than more training? And experience in making your own decisions - i.e. solo. Cost of flying in the UK reduces this.

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Maoraigh1,

I was't arguing for more training but rather for better training, or to be more specific, better ground training.

In my view current ground training, in so far as it may be said to exist at all, is woefully inadequate.

But yes of course, flying currency with its concomitant experience in handling the unexpected is also crucial. We are so accustomed to the excessive cost of solo flying in the UK that we rarely complain about it when perhaps we should. And I should love to see a calculation of how much of the hourly rate is accounted for by regulatory costs.

BP.

[Pace]

We have had these discussions in length and I quote the Cirrus accident reports for BRS pulls as sad reading for many of the needless pulls which basic handling and flying within ones limits would have avoided.

The Cirrus is a great aircraft with some very advanced pilot aid systems as well as the BRS.
There are two questions! Do these systems encourage pilots to fly out of their ability or safety zones and are we becoming button pushers more interested in the latest high tech systems and in doing so loosing sight of hand flying and handling?

On the first part I have always disliked flying on a dark night in a single but know that with the Cirrus I have a BRS get me out of jail card.
So yes I would be more tempted to fly the cirrus at night than a conventional aircraft. Hence my exposure to risk would be higher

Looking at the accident stats for pulls so many you ask why? Ok the BRS saves lives but you have to question the ability of some of those pilots.
Currency is not just about being in the air but being current in hand flying and dealing with failures emergencies and problems.

Maybe pressing a button and letting the aircraft fly YOU somewhere is a dangerous trend
these advanced systems should be there to compliment your flying skills not to make up for a lack of those skills

Pace

[Romeo Tango]

Maybe pressing a button and letting the aircraft fly YOU somewhere is a dangerous trend

The trouble is that the time is coming when the stuff behind the button will be better and more reliable than the average human pilot (present company excepted of course). Especially in a highly ordered environment like IFR.

[sunday driver]

From the report on the Bute accident, the AAIB feel the BRS issues are vital for rescuers, where the first to arrive may well be a concerned member of the general public.

If there are more GA accidents in the UK at the departure / arrival phases than en route, I wonder where the greater risk lies ...

With the small number of incidents where the BRS saves an otherwise fatal situation ?
or
With the larger number of incidents that place rescuers at severe risk ?


If the latter, then the risk / benefit analysis is clear - BRS benefit is not worth the risk.
Unless, of course, you are the pilot / passenger.

SD

[Pace]

BRS benefit is not worth the risk.

BRS benefit is worth the risk in the same way that the second engine on a light twin is worth having if used by a competent pilot who is aware of the dangers of that second engine, can fly and handle an engine out situation. Knows when to climb at blue line or when to pull both engines back and force land.

It comes back to the same statement that all these advanced systems and pilot aids are worthwhile if they compliment the pilot skills rather than being used to replace those skills.

BRS in the hands of a responsible, current and capable pilot is a huge addition to safety! In the hands of an idiot a dangerous tool to lure him/her into situations where they are way out of their depth or capability which will mean that the BRS will be pulled to save the pilot from a situation they should not be in.

But don't blame the BRS but the pilot who's hands pull it if its pulled when it didn't need to be pulled had the pilot been up to the job in hand

Pace