BRS in a twin
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The result would be massive publicity and chances if killing someone on the ground are pretty high.
admittedly these were not all over built up areas but nevertheless I perceive that risk miniscule and certainly relative small to the greater risk of aircraft in general risk of having airport near built up areas in the first place.
I would glide away from the built up area and then pull the chute or use my skills to force land.
I can assure you I would definately not stall and I have taken out a tree stumped hedge before so that does not worry me unduly : )
Let me ask you a question , with your loved ones on board would you 100% aim for that smallish field with a few trees?
Last edited by 007helicopter; 25th Jun 2012 at 09:13.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taken out a tree stumped hedge before so that does not worry me unduly
We do something once and get away with it , it then reinforces our ability to get away with it again and conditions us to think it will be OK.
ie I flew through that icing and got away with it no problem, this anti ice on the Cirrus is great !!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me ask you a question , with your loved ones on board would you 100% aim for that smallish field with a few trees?
Every situation is different and that is an on the day judgement. Over a heavily built up area? Yes I would take to the distant fields as I do NOT agree with you that the chances of a Cirrus coming down at a high descent rate into a school yard does not carry a high risk of killing someone on the ground.
Also you forget another point in that you are a victim of the winds of the day so still may suffer a 30 kt forward impact into a church steeple or building.
At least if you comedown vertically onto the church spire you will make a nice Salvador Dali style work of art
but it maybe painful to future family expansion Do not for one second imagine that coming down under a chute does not itself carry risk at least with a flying aircraft you have control under a chute you have none.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 25th Jun 2012 at 09:24.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taken out a tree stumped hedge before so that does not worry me unduly
If you stand at the side of the M1 with a blind fold on, and ear defenders, and run across the carriage way. You could probably do that a number of times without getting hit by a car. But that doesn't make it safe or a sensible thing to do.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No but I have not argued 100%
Every situation is different and that is an on the day judgement.
Every situation is different and that is an on the day judgement.
Landing on a member of public as a risk is reduced substantially by virtue of at a 1000ft they are going to here that rocket explode very clearly and be looking skyward.
Landing on a spire, cliff edge, pylon, sewage works, motorway etc etc are all going to make it an uncertain outcome and will be inevitable sooner or later for some poor sod.
Some drivers may drive more quickly and some pilots fly more challenging missions but that still doesnt justify ignoring safety enhancements that would be just that based on two equivalent flights.
I can see that pulling the BRS at night is likely to be much safer than a forced landing at night, and I would probably be a lot more willing to fly at night if I had a BRS. To me this seems reasonable.
The issue with risk-compensation would be more about making silly decisions because of an increased sense of confidence - e.g. flying in very poor weather conditions or doing aerobatics in an aircraft that isn't cleared for them.
If ever you watch the news, during floods or blizzards, you are likely to see a disproportionate number of people who've come to grief crossing fords or coming off the road in their 4x4s. It isn't that a 4x4 is less able to cope with these conditions: just that their owners overestimated their capability and got themselves into trouble.
I also had a patient who was a BMX nut and had about 20 admissions for broken bones. When I asked him whether he wasn't overdoing things he assured me that he was very careful and always wore a helmet.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The concept is risk homeostasis. Generally, the safety feature must be obvious to the user. For example, airbags have little affect not do side impact beams. However, better tires, brakes and suspension do. In airplanes I expect BRS has some (night flights, low IFR, mountains) but I personally suspect in-cockpit weather has more of an effect along with GPS. Risk homeostasis isn't totally a bad thing. For example, people usually buy twins because they want to fly more challenging missions. People get IFR capable planes for the same reason. Probably the all time biggest offender is the attitude indicator. Moreover, according to risk homeostasis, people adjust to the same PERCEIVED risk level. Often perception doesn't match reality. I expect the introduction of the AI resulted in people taking on increased risk that they perceived as being more mitigated by the AI than it was.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What he means, I think, is that an airbag doesn't really make anybody drive faster, but a better handling car with better brakes etc would do.
Paulp is obviously right in that more capable hardware is purchased (mainly) for flying more challenging mission profiles.
Speaking of the Cirrus chute, I don't know whether the presence of the chute drives a more challenging mission profile, rather than the marketing which is aimed at a different (younger, wealthier, but not by default better trained because the initial pilot training is not type specific) pilot population.
My guess is that the more experienced a pilot is, the more likely he would be to consciously use the chute to fly a riskier mission profile.
Paulp is obviously right in that more capable hardware is purchased (mainly) for flying more challenging mission profiles.
Speaking of the Cirrus chute, I don't know whether the presence of the chute drives a more challenging mission profile, rather than the marketing which is aimed at a different (younger, wealthier, but not by default better trained because the initial pilot training is not type specific) pilot population.
My guess is that the more experienced a pilot is, the more likely he would be to consciously use the chute to fly a riskier mission profile.
Okay... I give in:
airbags have little effect; neither do side impact beams.
Sometimes keybroads mangle what yo'ure trying to say.
There's a lot of truth in it, but I'm not sure that you can totally discount 'hidden' safety improvements. Part of the alleged thrill of fairground rides is that they feel dangerous but we know they're safe. It certainly is possible for cognition to guide our asssessments of risk.
(alleged because, since learning to fly, I haven't found much excitement in them.)
airbags have little effect; neither do side impact beams.
Sometimes keybroads mangle what yo'ure trying to say.
There's a lot of truth in it, but I'm not sure that you can totally discount 'hidden' safety improvements. Part of the alleged thrill of fairground rides is that they feel dangerous but we know they're safe. It certainly is possible for cognition to guide our asssessments of risk.
(alleged because, since learning to fly, I haven't found much excitement in them.)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You see its all to do with age really.
If you stare into the cockpit of most cirrus you will see some boring old fart well into his 40s if not 50s or heaven forbid 60s; when you are 20 or 30 you cant afford it!
Now we all know as we get older the perception of our own mortality exponentially increases with age, the fragility of our bones but diminishes with our ego.
So at 50 we need the comfort of a chute because we realise our bones will no longer take it, but we think we will never need it because we have the wisdom to stay within our personal limits. Unfortunately for some our egos increase at about the same rate as our risk aversion so we end up doing something silly.
And then there are the young with too much money and no wisdom at all. The chutes perfect for them because their bones will take it but unfortunately at least sometimes they think they can solve the problem they themseves have got into without the chute.
So amoung the boring old farts and the wisdomless youngsters some will allow their egos to get the better of them, and some will pull when perhaps they shouldnt, but you and me will forget we have a chute until we realise we really need it, and then we will pull, feel happy we did and say our thanks that we had a last resort for our ultimate nightmare.
If you stare into the cockpit of most cirrus you will see some boring old fart well into his 40s if not 50s or heaven forbid 60s; when you are 20 or 30 you cant afford it!
Now we all know as we get older the perception of our own mortality exponentially increases with age, the fragility of our bones but diminishes with our ego.
So at 50 we need the comfort of a chute because we realise our bones will no longer take it, but we think we will never need it because we have the wisdom to stay within our personal limits. Unfortunately for some our egos increase at about the same rate as our risk aversion so we end up doing something silly.
And then there are the young with too much money and no wisdom at all. The chutes perfect for them because their bones will take it but unfortunately at least sometimes they think they can solve the problem they themseves have got into without the chute.
So amoung the boring old farts and the wisdomless youngsters some will allow their egos to get the better of them, and some will pull when perhaps they shouldnt, but you and me will forget we have a chute until we realise we really need it, and then we will pull, feel happy we did and say our thanks that we had a last resort for our ultimate nightmare.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some boring old fart well into his 40s if not 50s or heaven forbid 60s; .........some will pull when perhaps they shouldnt,
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you stare into the cockpit of most cirrus you will see some boring old fart well into his 40s if not 50s
and some will pull when perhaps they shouldnt, but you and me will forget we have a chute until we realise we really need it, and then we will pull,
I think for virtually all pilots (including me) the natural instinct is to try and save the day, not have the stigma of pulling the chute and admitting failure, wrestle it to the ground, not write off the ship, see if things improve on the way down, Plus do what we were virtually all trained to do and land in a field, all these thoughts prevent chute pulls plus simply forgetting in the heat of the moment and using it when really needed.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 26th Jun 2012 at 06:15.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do wonder if the pilot in the report below would have thought more about NOT undertaking the flight due to the weather if he had not got a BRS fitted.
Reading it carefully shows a lack of understanding of the systems in the aircraft and perhaps over confidence in the aircraft and the BRS rather than true pilot ability.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...RD%2007-11.pdf
Reading it carefully shows a lack of understanding of the systems in the aircraft and perhaps over confidence in the aircraft and the BRS rather than true pilot ability.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...RD%2007-11.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007Heli
There is no doubt the chute has huge safety benefits especially regarding pilot incapacitation and where the aircraft becomes unflyable.
Where there is a question is using the chute where the aircraft is flyable.
I think it is alarming that We are more and more teaching to avoidance and turning out aeroplane drivers rather than pilots.
I could see situations even with the aircraft as flyable where I would use the chute! Over dense forest or rocky terrain.
I WOULD SERIOUSLY question using the chute on a flyable aircraft over densely populated or built up areas.
Remember there is already a rule in place regarding such flight which is at an altitude which allows you to glide clear.
I do not believe Cirrus would ever condone publicly using the chute over built up areas rather than gliding clear as the public liability issues would be enormous.
Do I think the chute itself will encourage pilots to fly in conditions or situations that they or the aircraft are not up to?
Without any shadow of a doubt.
Responsibly used the chute is an excellent safety asset. Used without thought it is a liability to increasing accidents and a threat to those on the ground.
Would I like a Cirrus with a BRS! Yes love one
Pace
There is no doubt the chute has huge safety benefits especially regarding pilot incapacitation and where the aircraft becomes unflyable.
Where there is a question is using the chute where the aircraft is flyable.
I think it is alarming that We are more and more teaching to avoidance and turning out aeroplane drivers rather than pilots.
I could see situations even with the aircraft as flyable where I would use the chute! Over dense forest or rocky terrain.
I WOULD SERIOUSLY question using the chute on a flyable aircraft over densely populated or built up areas.
Remember there is already a rule in place regarding such flight which is at an altitude which allows you to glide clear.
I do not believe Cirrus would ever condone publicly using the chute over built up areas rather than gliding clear as the public liability issues would be enormous.
Do I think the chute itself will encourage pilots to fly in conditions or situations that they or the aircraft are not up to?
Without any shadow of a doubt.
Responsibly used the chute is an excellent safety asset. Used without thought it is a liability to increasing accidents and a threat to those on the ground.
Would I like a Cirrus with a BRS! Yes love one
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with any aircraft the equipment needs to meet the requirements for IFR and without a standby AI it doesn't. Why you would make (or buy) a Cirrus without IFR capability is another matter, but as usual cost is a factor and doubtless some are more than happy to trade cost for equipment particularly if they have no intention of ever going IMC. All that said in an emergency situation (and as you appreciate) short of the PFD failing the aircraft has all the equipment needed to enable the pilot to recover to VMC.
Edited to add - it also had a T and S so even with an PFD failure in fact a recovery from IMC was possible but (and Pace will not like this) I think the current philosophy is to pull the chute if you suffer a PFD failure (well in Avidynes not fitted with the ability to transfer the primary data to the second screen). Continuing with the standby AI and compass usually found in Cirrus should not be too much of a problem but with just a T and S and compass (which are not ideally situated on the panel) it might well prove a challenge for most.
The report does raise some interesting questions about whether or not the pilot actually entered IMC. I have to say if he remained in VMC it does seem odd he resorted to the chute. If he didnt remain in VMC it demonstrates another example of the chute probably saving the occupants lives. For me it is largely academic to second guess whether the pilot should have got himself into that situation in the first place - there are plenty enough examples of pilots that do without a chute.
It is also interesting that it is suggested the chute was deployed at a far higher speed that ideal - never the less reassuring that the chute will cope in these circumstances.
Finally it is interesting the pilot attempted to use the engine to reposition the aircraft. This has been attempted before. I have to say I am still not clear how successfully. It is a shame there is not a more detailed analysis in the report (or perhaps I need to read the report more carefully).
Edited to add - it also had a T and S so even with an PFD failure in fact a recovery from IMC was possible but (and Pace will not like this) I think the current philosophy is to pull the chute if you suffer a PFD failure (well in Avidynes not fitted with the ability to transfer the primary data to the second screen). Continuing with the standby AI and compass usually found in Cirrus should not be too much of a problem but with just a T and S and compass (which are not ideally situated on the panel) it might well prove a challenge for most.
The report does raise some interesting questions about whether or not the pilot actually entered IMC. I have to say if he remained in VMC it does seem odd he resorted to the chute. If he didnt remain in VMC it demonstrates another example of the chute probably saving the occupants lives. For me it is largely academic to second guess whether the pilot should have got himself into that situation in the first place - there are plenty enough examples of pilots that do without a chute.
It is also interesting that it is suggested the chute was deployed at a far higher speed that ideal - never the less reassuring that the chute will cope in these circumstances.
Finally it is interesting the pilot attempted to use the engine to reposition the aircraft. This has been attempted before. I have to say I am still not clear how successfully. It is a shame there is not a more detailed analysis in the report (or perhaps I need to read the report more carefully).
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 26th Jun 2012 at 12:08.