Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree A and C it is only a SEP
But with technology and systems which are far more advanced than my heap of poo TP which does require a TR.
And that level of technology leads people to get into situations which are way beyond there skill set.
It doesn't help that any instructor can make up there own syllabus for conversion training. It seems to me the instructor needs a TRI level of system knowledge to be able to complete the level of training competently
How many GA aircraft have been lost due to lose of control in IMC in Europe in the last 10 years and how many have had IR's flying them?
But with technology and systems which are far more advanced than my heap of poo TP which does require a TR.
And that level of technology leads people to get into situations which are way beyond there skill set.
It doesn't help that any instructor can make up there own syllabus for conversion training. It seems to me the instructor needs a TRI level of system knowledge to be able to complete the level of training competently
How many GA aircraft have been lost due to lose of control in IMC in Europe in the last 10 years and how many have had IR's flying them?
Last edited by mad_jock; 9th Jun 2013 at 09:11.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am also against insisting on a type rating as such.
I do, however, strongly support the idea of proper training for anyone wanting to fly any technically advanced aircraft including the Cirrus. I think most insurance companies insist on it anyway.
In the case of the Cirrus, it is really important to get this training from a Cirrus Standardised Instructor Program (CSIP) certified instructor. Not only will you get the best insight into the aircraft and it's systems, but you also get clear guidance on how the CAPS system can best be integrated into your emergency handling.
In addition to this COPA runs regular Pilot Proficiency Programs and Critical Decision Making seminars which reinforce this and, IMHO, significantly enhance safety as well as knowledge of the aircraft and it's systems.
I do, however, strongly support the idea of proper training for anyone wanting to fly any technically advanced aircraft including the Cirrus. I think most insurance companies insist on it anyway.
In the case of the Cirrus, it is really important to get this training from a Cirrus Standardised Instructor Program (CSIP) certified instructor. Not only will you get the best insight into the aircraft and it's systems, but you also get clear guidance on how the CAPS system can best be integrated into your emergency handling.
In addition to this COPA runs regular Pilot Proficiency Programs and Critical Decision Making seminars which reinforce this and, IMHO, significantly enhance safety as well as knowledge of the aircraft and it's systems.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That advanced training is only as good as the foundations which it builds on.
No foundations and as soon as the poo hits the fan there is nothing to stop the stack of cards falling down.
No foundations and as soon as the poo hits the fan there is nothing to stop the stack of cards falling down.
Last edited by mad_jock; 9th Jun 2013 at 09:55.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk and the way it is seen.
Thirty years ago if this inccident had happened with a Beech or Mooney there would be two dead people and a high energy impact that would have done far more damage that knocking down a few trees and a fence, the trouble is that these days life is perceived as risk free with any accident as being the fault of someone.
Now due to the ambulance chasing lawyers some above see this as a major inccident.............it is not , a wrecked aircraft, a few broken trees, a demolished fence and a bit of work needed from a gardener.
No one was hurt.
All this suff about the risk to people on the ground is all very well and we all don't want to land an aircraft in a built up area but the fact remains that the chances of a member of the public being killed by an aircraft are so small that they are an insignificant risk to life. What the BRS does guarantee that the aircraft falling from the sky does so with little energy and won't arrive with the impact of an artillery shell futher reducing the risk.
I regret the inccident did not happen over open ground largely because if it had not hit anything on the way down I could have made a few bob glueing it back together.
Now due to the ambulance chasing lawyers some above see this as a major inccident.............it is not , a wrecked aircraft, a few broken trees, a demolished fence and a bit of work needed from a gardener.
No one was hurt.
All this suff about the risk to people on the ground is all very well and we all don't want to land an aircraft in a built up area but the fact remains that the chances of a member of the public being killed by an aircraft are so small that they are an insignificant risk to life. What the BRS does guarantee that the aircraft falling from the sky does so with little energy and won't arrive with the impact of an artillery shell futher reducing the risk.
I regret the inccident did not happen over open ground largely because if it had not hit anything on the way down I could have made a few bob glueing it back together.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that level of technology leads people to get into situations which are way beyond there skill set.
I hear of no such problems with G1000 equipped Cessnas which have been with us since 2004.
D.O.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear of no such problems with G1000 equipped Cessnas which have been with us since 2004.
D.O.
D.O.
Might be because compared to the size of the fleet, there are 5000+ Cirrus and how many G1000 equipped Cessna's?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that's more to do with the integration between the G1000 and the autopilot if there is even one fitted and then if you take into account the number of those that actually work cuts the numbers down again.
I suspect there are very few Cessna G1000 pilots who will LNAV using it and even less that will let it drive the AP for an approach.
But if you take into account all the caravans as well there will be similar numbers.
Were as the cirrus the whole lot is integrated as a selling point. And the tendency is to let the automatics do the work. Which is fine until something happens like a runway swap or system failure and when the pilot doesn't have either the experience or the skill set to sort it out the handle gets pulled.
But the main fact is that the aircraft should never have been near that situation with that pilot at the controls. The fact that they lived to tell the tale is a good thing. Darwin law has been bypassed.
Maybe we should have a separate rating for pilots that are competent enough to fly without a parachute.
I suspect there are very few Cessna G1000 pilots who will LNAV using it and even less that will let it drive the AP for an approach.
But if you take into account all the caravans as well there will be similar numbers.
Were as the cirrus the whole lot is integrated as a selling point. And the tendency is to let the automatics do the work. Which is fine until something happens like a runway swap or system failure and when the pilot doesn't have either the experience or the skill set to sort it out the handle gets pulled.
But the main fact is that the aircraft should never have been near that situation with that pilot at the controls. The fact that they lived to tell the tale is a good thing. Darwin law has been bypassed.
Maybe we should have a separate rating for pilots that are competent enough to fly without a parachute.
Last edited by mad_jock; 9th Jun 2013 at 10:19.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno
We are not that far apart ; ) remember my posting style is designed to encourage debate!
The Cirrus and chute would be my choice for a touring single!
I would even question your deck of 1000 feet? It depends on circumstances! Is the aircraft flyable ? If not and you are heading at high speed to impact the ground then surely any deployment which may reduce that impact is better than none ?
Hence a healthy debate on the subject can only be good
I will post my own list of deploy or not deploy and I am sure you will see we are not very far apart
Pace
We are not that far apart ; ) remember my posting style is designed to encourage debate!
The Cirrus and chute would be my choice for a touring single!
I would even question your deck of 1000 feet? It depends on circumstances! Is the aircraft flyable ? If not and you are heading at high speed to impact the ground then surely any deployment which may reduce that impact is better than none ?
Hence a healthy debate on the subject can only be good
I will post my own list of deploy or not deploy and I am sure you will see we are not very far apart
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should have a separate rating for pilots that are competent enough to fly without a parachute.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I regret the inccident did not happen over open ground largely because if it had not hit anything on the way down I could have made a few bob glueing it back together.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't need to be me, there are plenty out there with the same back ground and mind set.
If your near COV get one of the ex Atlantic training team to give you a few hours instruction.
I will guarantee you will learn something, your normal work load will be decreased and you will have more capacity. I think a lot are running maxed out and have no spare capacity which is causing half the issues.
Any of the pro high houred guys on here could do it which ever side of the fence they sit.
Although to be honest you just have to keep saying to yourself "what's next, what's next, what's my escape plan, what's next" and repeat until you have shut down and the what's next is a pint in the pub.
If your near COV get one of the ex Atlantic training team to give you a few hours instruction.
I will guarantee you will learn something, your normal work load will be decreased and you will have more capacity. I think a lot are running maxed out and have no spare capacity which is causing half the issues.
Any of the pro high houred guys on here could do it which ever side of the fence they sit.
Although to be honest you just have to keep saying to yourself "what's next, what's next, what's my escape plan, what's next" and repeat until you have shut down and the what's next is a pint in the pub.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
True. Apologies.
And you might have made the same remark when the regulars became much more than just "confrontational", hundreds of posts back. But I guess you'll consider this another confrontational post...
And you might have made the same remark when the regulars became much more than just "confrontational", hundreds of posts back. But I guess you'll consider this another confrontational post...
IMO, any safety device is worth having, BRS included.
[Shame no-one makes a backpack version for motorcyclists. Then riders of high speed bikes could disregard the highway code and speed limits. For example, if they do screw up in town and all else fails, they can save themselves by leaving the bike to it's own devices... Pedestrians etc ? Just collateral damage.
].
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To say the aviation low flying rules laws of any state are over-restrictive shows a dangerous arrogance.
Every pilot has to make their own assessment of risk, weighing the multitude of risks against each other where they are in conflict. To me, the very, very, very low probability of even hitting someone on the ground under parachute, let alone injuring them, means that I will not be concerned with it when compared to considering my own life as being directly and immediately threatened. Because that is the situation the pilot is in when he/she pulls the chute. For him/her, in that situation, of course there is "no alternative". What else? No amount of "Monday morning quarter-backing" will change that the pilot felt his life in immediate danger when he pulled.
If I should ever have to pull, I fully expect it to be in a situation that - in hindsight - will seem utterly trivial and completely avoidable. The statistics of aviation accidents (in GA as well as in professional flying) are just tremendously tilted towards that outcome, because most of us humans are quite fallible - even if not all see it (on this forum, especially, it seems). But I'll be alive to beat myself up about having been a complete idiot.
Last edited by thborchert; 9th Jun 2013 at 12:40.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I do, however, believe that the "glide free" rule is broken by most pilots on most flights.
When there has been reason for an instructor to look over my flight planning it's been
"What height are you going to be flying over that bit?"
"x,000'"
"Why?"
"Glide clear rule."
"Jolly good."
(Of course, flying over Cambridge at 1,000', accidentally managing in the process to give passengers a good view of the city, isn't "breaking the glide clear rule", it's "joining cross-wind" which is a legitimate part of the landing procedure and therefore exempt from the glide clear rule.)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
The only difference is that the ballistic chute gives you more options and the decision on when to use it needs to be taken on the ground long before you fly the aircraft having carefully digested the advice from Cirrus.
Forum discussions like these perpetuate the mythology that pilots don't need a parachute, that pilots can train to avoid using it, and that pilots who do pull are ___ (fill in your favorite pejorative adjectives). All of those notions appear in this thread alone.
For Cirrus pilots, even after carefully digesting the advice, even after training with skilled Cirrus instructors, we see them go from a briefing to flying a sim and in 5 minutes killing themselves because they didn't pull the red CAPS handle. The sim instructors claim that "they usually only have to kill them once" before these pilots realize what is needed to maintain awareness of the option to pull the parachute handle.
Think. Train. Practice. All of those are necessary so pilots will have a better chance of utilising the parachute, let alone the skills to avoid needing one!
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forum discussions like these perpetuate the mythology that pilots don't need a parachute, that pilots can train to avoid using it, and that pilots who do pull are ___ (fill in your favorite pejorative adjectives). All of those notions appear in this thread alone.
And most of us certainly don't need one for the minuscule risk of engine failure or in flight break up.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be very interesting to compare the number of fatalities or serious injuries in SEP aircraft since the Cirrus was released, in both Cirrus and other aircraft and then normalise the hours to give an X:100000 hrly figure to compare the Cirrus with other aeroplanes...
But I can't be bothered to do it. I would be very happy to fly a Cirrus with the BRS and if I needed to pull the handle, then I would.
SDBeach, you are outnumbered on these forums by predominately British pilots. In Britian we have a CAN'T DO attitude in aviation, compared to the US CAN DO attitude, so you will always lose the argument (or rather someone will always have to have the last word!)
Good luck, I am going to pull the Red Handle and bail out of this one now.........
But I can't be bothered to do it. I would be very happy to fly a Cirrus with the BRS and if I needed to pull the handle, then I would.
SDBeach, you are outnumbered on these forums by predominately British pilots. In Britian we have a CAN'T DO attitude in aviation, compared to the US CAN DO attitude, so you will always lose the argument (or rather someone will always have to have the last word!)
Good luck, I am going to pull the Red Handle and bail out of this one now.........
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
Forum discussions like these perpetuate the mythology that pilots don't need a parachute, that pilots can train to avoid using it, and that pilots who do pull are ___ (fill in your favorite pejorative adjectives). All of those notions appear in this thread alone.
And most of us certainly don't need one for the minuscule risk of engine failure or in flight break up.
However, what about the oft-quoted minuscule risk of ____ (fill in your favorite factor involved in fatal accidents)?
Reading news reports of other airplane crashes, engine failure happens often enough to make headlines. In those crashes with a minuscule risk, the pilots are 100% dead. That's the big problem with low probability events with catastrophic outcomes -- you don't survive!
It's the catastrophic outcome that I would like to avoid. Training helps. But it does not assure me of a survivable outcome.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SDBeach
I think that what you and I are saying has more to do with illustrating that we live in two country's divided by a common language rather than any real difference in opinion on the use of the chute.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by englishal
It would be very interesting to compare the number of fatalities or serious injuries in SEP aircraft since the Cirrus was released, in both Cirrus and other aircraft and then normalise the hours to give an X:100000 hrly figure to compare the Cirrus with other aeroplanes...
But I can't be bothered to do it. I would be very happy to fly a Cirrus with the BRS and if I needed to pull the handle, then I would.
SDBeach, you are outnumbered on these forums by predominately British pilots. In Britian we have a CAN'T DO attitude in aviation, compared to the US CAN DO attitude, so you will always lose the argument (or rather someone will always have to have the last word!)
Good luck, I am going to pull the Red Handle and bail out of this one now.........
But I can't be bothered to do it. I would be very happy to fly a Cirrus with the BRS and if I needed to pull the handle, then I would.
SDBeach, you are outnumbered on these forums by predominately British pilots. In Britian we have a CAN'T DO attitude in aviation, compared to the US CAN DO attitude, so you will always lose the argument (or rather someone will always have to have the last word!)
Good luck, I am going to pull the Red Handle and bail out of this one now.........
This is taken from my work posted on the COPA site: Cirrus SR20/SR22 fatal accident history - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
The NTSB and the FAA survey of general aviation activity provide numbers for the GA fleet, although predominantly in the US or N-reg airplanes. For 2011, the reported fatal accident rate was 1.17 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flying time. Since 2000, the number has ranged from 1.16 to 1.34 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.
Caution: these numbers include instructional and commercial operations, where there are few fatal accidents and about 40% of the flying hours. The NTSB published numbers for Personal and Business flying. In 2011, Personal and Business flying was 2.38 and ranged from 1.91 to 2.49 since 2000. (Note: this rate has increased over the past decade, contrary to conventional wisdom that the GA fatal accident rate has been steady and resistant to change. It got worse!)
So you might compare the Cirrus numbers to 1.17 or 2.38 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours.
How to get the Cirrus numbers? COPA tracks all fatal accidents, including those foreign accidents for which the NTSB rarely gets involved, like Brazil and Germany. Since 2000, there have been 96 fatal Cirrus accidents and about 5,700,000 flying hours. Flying time is tracked by the Reliability Engineering folks at Cirrus Aircraft by serial number based on warranty cards, service bulletins and parachute repacks.
In the past 12 months, we have 8 fatal accidents and about 700,000 flying hours, or 1.16 Cirrus fatals per 100,000 hours.
Since the Cirrus fleet of 5400 airplanes is 1/40 of the SEP fleet, small numbers perturb the rates, so we also track 36 months, where we have 33 fatal accidents and about 2,000,000 flying hours or 1.63 fatals per 100,000 hours. (Sadly, we had a very bad interval in fall of 2011 with 8 accidents in just 3 months.)
So, given the work of tracking Cirrus flying hours, you can compare the numbers you like:
1.16 Cirrus fatal accidents/100,000 hours in past 12 months
1.17 GA fatal accidents/100,000 hours in 2011
1.63 Cirrus fatal accidents/100,000 hours in past 36 months
2.38 GA Personal & Business fatal accidents/100,000 hours in 2011
Here is that in chart form:
Have fun.
Cheers
Rick