False safety feeling?

[vanHorck]

In an attempt to clean up the Greek crash posting

It is a known fact that the introduction of mandatory safety belts in cars led the drivers to increase their speed due to perceived increased safety. The same has happened with airbags.

The question is then, does the ballistic chute lead to the same human drive to increase risk because there is an escape route?

The same question could be asked about glass cockpits. Whilst they may be great for extremely current ATPL's, the display of highway in the sky could give not so current pilots a false sense of safety, especially in this transition period of the old dials versus glass, with PPL instruction planes often still being on these old dials.

Comments anyone?

[IO540]

With the BRS chute, I would definitely feel more relafxed about flying over mountains and forests, and at night.

Currently, I avoid the last one more or less altogether because there is no escape route.

Nothing wrong with using the chute that way.

The allegation, which I think you are alluding to is that some pilots almost don't bother to get the weather data before they fly - because they have the chute.

As regards better avionics, I would totally disagree with any suggestion that it reduces safety - unless again the pilot is a bit of a mug.

The problem is that in GA the equipment is now several decades ahead of the training.........

[Rod1]

There are a lot of micros which can have the device fitted. In some areas it is compulsory, in others it is optional. A comparison of the accident stats should answer the question. My gut feel is it does make people take bigger risks.

Rod1

[belowradar]

I am wondering why the chute was not deployed? Assume that it was not , if it had been then probably not a fatal accident.

[vanHorck]

I agree with IO540 that the availability of a chute could lead to being relaxed about the weather. Thats a BIG danger!

As to the glass cockpit, I know there are courses, but anyone having learned to fly on a sixpack could theoretically go out in a glass cockpit plane with no or little training and screw up big time. Even the arrival of GPS caused this, a new piece of kit, so let's go out and check it out in the air.... I remember that day well!

[Pace]

If you were driving a car with explosives on each corner of the car and knowing any collision no matter how light would have you blown up to kingdom come how careful would you be?

Fear drives us all and removing a fear is bound to make you more relaxed.
The older pilot who may be more concerned about his health will be happier knowing his love ones have a way out if he dies at the controls.

The pilot who worries he might get into a situation he cannot handle will relax if he has an extra arrow to his bow.

The Pilot flying in possible icing might decide to take a chance if he thinks that if he ices up he has an ultimate way out.

The Guy flying through weather

The one over mountains

The one at night

The one over fog banks etc etc etc.

All these people are more likely to fly in conditions they would not do so without the shute. Its human nature.

As in this case whether they have the presence of mind to use it is another matter so in that case maybe a false sense of security?

Pace

[englishal]

My controversial view is that often these aeroplanes are bought by inexperienced wealthy people who probably have bought them as their first aeroplane - maybe even to do the PPL in, whereas people of lesser means may buy a PA28 or C172. While there is nothing wrong with this, you may find that they easily fall behind the aeroplane and when marginal decisions have to be made, they fall on the wrong side due to lack of experience.

Some people may not agree with me, but I think that for a PPL with 50-100 hrs TT, a 300HP Cirrus is going to be too much of a handfull until they have a reasonably amount of post PPL experience (unless they actualy did all their flying in the aircraft). I remember when I used to think the Arrow 2 was too fast for me to stay ahead of. Then after flying around for a while I got my IR and started flying twins and suddenly the Arrow became slow and instead of being at 110%, I could cruise along and look out of the window enjoying the view, operating at 30%.

Here is a prime example:

The airplane impacted terrain on the airport during a simulated forced landing attempt at the end of a four day training curriculum for a new owner of a Cirrus SR22 airplane. The pilot/dual student had received a private pilot certificate at total time of 60.8 hours, about 1 1/2 months prior to the accident. Two days before the accident, the pilot received a high performance airplane endorsement from the certified flight instructor (CFI) who was providing Cirrus SR22 instruction at the time of the accident. The curriculum was extended by the pilot to a fourth day from the normal three day curriculum. During a simulated total loss of engine power, the pilot flew to an airport and entered the left downwind traffic pattern for a landing on runway 26. During the base to final turn, the pilot banked "steeply," and when the airplane exceeded a 30 degree left bank, the CFI verbally warned the pilot. The pilot "banked [the airplane] steeper," the stall horn sounded, and the left wing "dropped." The CFI then "grabbed the controls to prevent [the airplane] from entering a spin" and applied full power. The CFI reported that the airplane was "losing altitude in the stall with the left and right wing alternately dropping." The airplane impacted terrain to the right of the approach end of runway 26. A passenger who had flown the Cirrus SR22 stated the difficulties in transitioning to the Cirrus SR22 included maintaining airspeed. He said that it's not like a Cessna 172 because it gets "fast" and you cannot feel an impending stall. The passenger also stated that getting use to all the electronics aboard the Cirrus SR22 is a lot to learn over three days.

[IO540]

I agree with IO540 that the availability of a chute could lead to being relaxed about the weather.

That's not what I said ...

I said it makes one more comfortable flying over mountains and forests and at night. That's a big difference.

Flying into crap weather just because one has the chute is utter stupidity and only a complete idiot would do it, because it is equivalent to saying that if one gets into some horrid weather and gets iced up and plummets, or gets an in-flight structural failure, one will pull the chute, write off the £250,000 plane, get out (hopefully) and walk away while sticking a finger up to everybody else.

Not saying people don't do this (I think some do, unwittingly, often through crap training) but it doesn't make it any less daft.

Some people may not agree with me, but I think that for a PPL with 50-100 hrs TT, a 300HP Cirrus is going to be too much of a handfull until they have a reasonably amount of post PPL experience (unless they actualy did all their flying in the aircraft)

Agreed, especially with the bit in brackets. But, in the UK for sure, training in an advanced type is not easy to arrange. Getting insurance for the solo portions of the PPL might be impossible. And very few PPL-level instructors understand even a GNS430. In 2002 I bought a new plane with "state of the art 1990s avionics" and never found an instructor who knew how it worked. I did work it out eventually but it's not a procedure I would recommend

Sheer power is not a problem, IMHO. Power means that you can e.g. go around and if you don't get rid of the landing flap, the thing still goes up like a rocket. It makes for a much safer plane. And the mental difference between 100kt and 150kt is nothing. You have to think ahead; one can enter a circuit at 100kt but not at 150 without looking like a right d*ck

It is weather, advanced systems, and generally thinking ahead that requires training.