Aircraft accidents AIrcraft to blame?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact is there are I think 23 lives saved using the Cirrus ballistic shute system.
23 people walking around today who wouldnt have been had it not been for the parachute system.
I wonder if the manufacturers of the RAF aircraft which colided and crashed robbing two young kids of their lives had been ahead of Cirrus and fitted such a system years back whether those kids would be alive today?
People usually get killed falling from the Sky or flying into something not in ground accidents.
We might choose to take our own risks but do we have the right to risk others who know no better?
Pace
23 people walking around today who wouldnt have been had it not been for the parachute system.
I wonder if the manufacturers of the RAF aircraft which colided and crashed robbing two young kids of their lives had been ahead of Cirrus and fitted such a system years back whether those kids would be alive today?
People usually get killed falling from the Sky or flying into something not in ground accidents.
We might choose to take our own risks but do we have the right to risk others who know no better?
Pace
Moderator
I will continue to assert that in most cases, the aircraft cannot be found to be the pivotal fail point in an accident, it is nearly always a human/pilot induced failing. In 5000 hours plus flying over 30 years, it has never even crossed my mind that I would like to exit an aircraft in flight (or give up and plummet in it). This, in the context of having flown several aircraft with major control malfunctions and handling defects. Instinct always had me fight the thing to the ground, and in each case, I landed safely. Sure, one can draw upon an image of an aircraft at altitude, with a failure, and lots of time to think it through, and determine that deploying a chute would be a good idea, but that really is not the reality of general aviation accidents. Most seem to happen with little warning, and /or close to the ground, with little time to react.
I am not trained as a military fighter pilot. I am sure that they have much different training, in which you reach a point where you realize (apparently in micro seconds) that a complete mind shift from “fly” to “flee” is appropriate. I do not challenge this, just comment that such training is definitely outside the norm for civil pilots!
The multi decade old aircraft we fly today, are as safe, or safer than they were when they were new. They have the opportunity for better maintenance. They have the benefit of “tribal knowledge” of type operating experience. And we have somewhat better pilot/aircraft interface (instruments and avionics) all of which should go to make the flying more safe.
On the other side, we have manufacturers who are justifiably running scared of liability, and will make the aviation consumer pay the cost for innovations, which on the surface seem to make the plane more safe, but in reality, give the manufacturer better traction to defend liability claims in court. Then we get amateur built and ultra light aircraft, which are returning us to the simplicity of the “old way” of flying, though with weight limitations which result in difficulty making a truly robust aircraft in some cases.
Engines don’t end up in the laps of occupants at a disproportionate rate, when compared to other injurious circumstances. You’d be surprised how many occupants are injured in aircraft whose cabin structural integrity has not been substantially compromised. I have personally removed a dead friend from his crashed Cessna 150, which had stopped at 200G (according to the coroner). The doors to the cabin still opened, and I was able to enter the cabin. The propeller flange was peeled off the crankshaft, but the engine was still in the mount when we lifted the whole aircraft out.
I can’t accept the notion at face value that 23 people are alive following Cirrus accidents, because of the use of parachutes. The first thought that comes to my skeptical mind is; why does this aircraft type need the chute? Why do it’s pilots need the chute? Why did flight controls fall off the aircraft in flight? Why was the pilot flying over territory so unsuitable for a safe landing? Could any of those 23 people still be alive if the forced landing were skillfully conducted, as opposed to abandoned? Very likely.
Let me think…. Hudson River, New York…. Cirrus pilot (of perhaps modest skill and judgment) flies a probably flyable (and certainly ditchable) aircraft into a building – and fatalities result. Chute did not help, lots of room in the river did not help. Airbus pilot (of apparently highly superior skill and judgment) flies a unpowered and arguably unproven ditching design, to an excellent landing. Parachute not required, suitable landing area appropriately used.
JFK junior spirals in a perfectly serviceable and appropriately equipped aircraft, due to inexperience in the operating environment. Would he have deployed a chute had the aircraft been equipped? Maybe. Would it have helped? Spiraling down at terminal velocity? I doubt it!
I’m not sold on chutes or airbags for GA aircraft. I’m sold on better pilot skill and decision making/risk management training. Yes, chutes and airbags have probably saved lives, but while they were doing that, other lives were also quietly saved, and perhaps accidents entirely averted by well trained pilots who were flying appropriately.
We're making more complex aircraft, and less complex pilots. We're going the wrong way!
Pilot DAR
I am not trained as a military fighter pilot. I am sure that they have much different training, in which you reach a point where you realize (apparently in micro seconds) that a complete mind shift from “fly” to “flee” is appropriate. I do not challenge this, just comment that such training is definitely outside the norm for civil pilots!
The multi decade old aircraft we fly today, are as safe, or safer than they were when they were new. They have the opportunity for better maintenance. They have the benefit of “tribal knowledge” of type operating experience. And we have somewhat better pilot/aircraft interface (instruments and avionics) all of which should go to make the flying more safe.
On the other side, we have manufacturers who are justifiably running scared of liability, and will make the aviation consumer pay the cost for innovations, which on the surface seem to make the plane more safe, but in reality, give the manufacturer better traction to defend liability claims in court. Then we get amateur built and ultra light aircraft, which are returning us to the simplicity of the “old way” of flying, though with weight limitations which result in difficulty making a truly robust aircraft in some cases.
Engines don’t end up in the laps of occupants at a disproportionate rate, when compared to other injurious circumstances. You’d be surprised how many occupants are injured in aircraft whose cabin structural integrity has not been substantially compromised. I have personally removed a dead friend from his crashed Cessna 150, which had stopped at 200G (according to the coroner). The doors to the cabin still opened, and I was able to enter the cabin. The propeller flange was peeled off the crankshaft, but the engine was still in the mount when we lifted the whole aircraft out.
I can’t accept the notion at face value that 23 people are alive following Cirrus accidents, because of the use of parachutes. The first thought that comes to my skeptical mind is; why does this aircraft type need the chute? Why do it’s pilots need the chute? Why did flight controls fall off the aircraft in flight? Why was the pilot flying over territory so unsuitable for a safe landing? Could any of those 23 people still be alive if the forced landing were skillfully conducted, as opposed to abandoned? Very likely.
Let me think…. Hudson River, New York…. Cirrus pilot (of perhaps modest skill and judgment) flies a probably flyable (and certainly ditchable) aircraft into a building – and fatalities result. Chute did not help, lots of room in the river did not help. Airbus pilot (of apparently highly superior skill and judgment) flies a unpowered and arguably unproven ditching design, to an excellent landing. Parachute not required, suitable landing area appropriately used.
JFK junior spirals in a perfectly serviceable and appropriately equipped aircraft, due to inexperience in the operating environment. Would he have deployed a chute had the aircraft been equipped? Maybe. Would it have helped? Spiraling down at terminal velocity? I doubt it!
I’m not sold on chutes or airbags for GA aircraft. I’m sold on better pilot skill and decision making/risk management training. Yes, chutes and airbags have probably saved lives, but while they were doing that, other lives were also quietly saved, and perhaps accidents entirely averted by well trained pilots who were flying appropriately.
We're making more complex aircraft, and less complex pilots. We're going the wrong way!
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fact is there are I think 23 lives saved using the Cirrus ballistic shute system.
23 people walking around today who wouldnt have been had it not been for the parachute system."
I think what you really mean is 23 have survived a Cirrus Ballistic deployment. You will never know in most cases if they would have survived a landing attempt.
I can't say I have followed the Cirrus deployments much but the ones I have seen would normally be handled by a forced landing. Your aircraft may even survive the event, it will not if you deploy the chute.
Someone mentioned the Grob used by the RAF, they have been in sevice for a number of years now averaging something like 30,000 hrs a year. They carry out aerobatics on almost every flight. They take off and land approx every 30 mins which is the most dangerous phase of flight. The Grob 115 aircraft has already demonstrated its safety record. The recent accident is the first fatalities and loss of aircraft. they were low and I doubt that a ballistic chute would have helped.
Some kind of collision avoidance kit may have helped.
23 people walking around today who wouldnt have been had it not been for the parachute system."
I think what you really mean is 23 have survived a Cirrus Ballistic deployment. You will never know in most cases if they would have survived a landing attempt.
I can't say I have followed the Cirrus deployments much but the ones I have seen would normally be handled by a forced landing. Your aircraft may even survive the event, it will not if you deploy the chute.
Someone mentioned the Grob used by the RAF, they have been in sevice for a number of years now averaging something like 30,000 hrs a year. They carry out aerobatics on almost every flight. They take off and land approx every 30 mins which is the most dangerous phase of flight. The Grob 115 aircraft has already demonstrated its safety record. The recent accident is the first fatalities and loss of aircraft. they were low and I doubt that a ballistic chute would have helped.
Some kind of collision avoidance kit may have helped.
Moderator
Some kind of collision avoidance kit may have helped.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been a terrible week for light aircraft/private aviation. A report on the death of two young children caused by irresponsible actions and another two children killed for reasons we do not yet know.
However, in both instances, it seems highly unlikely that any form of aircraft safety equipment would have made a difference to the end result.
I notice that some people try to draw similarities to motor racing or the wider automotive industry. There have been incredible advances in these areas but at equally incredible cost. That sort of money is just not available for the relatively small private aviation market.
So, to have a go at answering the original question and at the risk of stating the obvious, the AAIB bulletins have been required reading for me over many years and they seem to suggest the following:
If a light aircraft is flown in a simple A to B way by a current pilot who has received normal PPL training , it is highly unlikely to break up in middair and apart from the odd occassion where maintenance has been called into question, the flight should be of relatively low or acceptable risk.
Once low flying, formation flying, aerobatics, bad weather flying, non currency and so on are introduced, if the pilot is not properly and comprehensively trained for these activities (and current), then the risk increases significantly and the sad tales from the AAIB reflect this. I would suggest it is therefore hard to come to any other conclusion that fault in most cases lies with the pilot and not the airframe.
However, in both instances, it seems highly unlikely that any form of aircraft safety equipment would have made a difference to the end result.
I notice that some people try to draw similarities to motor racing or the wider automotive industry. There have been incredible advances in these areas but at equally incredible cost. That sort of money is just not available for the relatively small private aviation market.
So, to have a go at answering the original question and at the risk of stating the obvious, the AAIB bulletins have been required reading for me over many years and they seem to suggest the following:
If a light aircraft is flown in a simple A to B way by a current pilot who has received normal PPL training , it is highly unlikely to break up in middair and apart from the odd occassion where maintenance has been called into question, the flight should be of relatively low or acceptable risk.
Once low flying, formation flying, aerobatics, bad weather flying, non currency and so on are introduced, if the pilot is not properly and comprehensively trained for these activities (and current), then the risk increases significantly and the sad tales from the AAIB reflect this. I would suggest it is therefore hard to come to any other conclusion that fault in most cases lies with the pilot and not the airframe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some kind of collision avoidance kit may have helped.
Two experienced RAF instructors? That should cover the lack of training scenario.
That then leaves the possibility that it was just a tragic accident.
I put this thread up for discussion and there have been many good comments thanks for that!
One negative with making aircraft appear safer is that as with the Cirrus pilots will fly in conditions where they normally wouldnt because they think that if it all goes wrong I have the shute.
They take larger risks which negate the safety benefits.
The old Cessna 172 has the best safety record but that is an aircraft which has very docile handling, low stall speeds and safe manners.
We have advanced leaps and bounds with the latest generation avionics.
We have terrain awareness, we have night low visibility vision. We have accurate and precise position awareness.
Cirrus have even now introduced a panic button. Loose control press the panic button and the aircraft levels itself.
Whether these advancements will show a long term improvement in accident statistics who knows.
I agree that aircraft dont break its pilots that break them but with all the training in the world we are a diverse bunch and this year has started badly.
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Fact is there are I think 23 lives saved using the Cirrus ballistic shute system.”
Very unreliable statistic;
How many would not have taken off if it had not been for the safety blanket of the shute?
How many aircraft have gone through the hedge which would have got airborne if it had not had the extra weight?
How many ran out of fuel re W & B limitations due to the compulsory shute?
How many people have suffered server back injuries which could have been avoided if a conventional ditching had been attempted?
I am not saying this is bad tec, just that it is not that simple to evaluate.
Rod1
Very unreliable statistic;
How many would not have taken off if it had not been for the safety blanket of the shute?
How many aircraft have gone through the hedge which would have got airborne if it had not had the extra weight?
How many ran out of fuel re W & B limitations due to the compulsory shute?
How many people have suffered server back injuries which could have been avoided if a conventional ditching had been attempted?
I am not saying this is bad tec, just that it is not that simple to evaluate.
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of the Cirrus chute pulls, very few would not have been landable conventionally.
I think only the one who had an epileptic fit.
Somebody else lost control in heavy icing, so maybe that one too, but he may have stalled/spun due to reaching his operating ceiling before that happened.
I think only the one who had an epileptic fit.
Somebody else lost control in heavy icing, so maybe that one too, but he may have stalled/spun due to reaching his operating ceiling before that happened.
