Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
It all comes from this report
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ara1101.pdf
If you go down to the GA bit.
Then compare it back to the graph in
Cirrus SR20/SR22 fatal accident history - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
You can see they have been fiddling with the numbers.
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/ara1101.pdf
If you go down to the GA bit.
Then compare it back to the graph in
Cirrus SR20/SR22 fatal accident history - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
You can see they have been fiddling with the numbers.
For the record, here is Figure 40 from that NTSB study of US Civil Aviation Accidents:
Note that the fatal accident rate line is the one on the bottom and matches the trend of increasing fatal accidents in Personal flying. While the scale is compressed, the trend is counter to improvement.
Where this all started for me was the shocking slide presented by the NTSB at the opening of their GA Safety Forum in June 2012:
All GA is the black line, and most of us have focused on moving that trend. But it blends relatively safer purposes for corporate and instructional flying that few Cirrus aircraft pursue. Consequently, I have since included both two rates for comparison -- the overall GA rate and the Personal and Business rate. No fiddling. Just a purposeful use of NTSB data to provide a better comparision.
Note: your complaint about fiddling with the numbers applies to the NTSB. And furthermore, both numbers were in my earlier post.
Cheers
Rick
Last edited by sdbeach; 10th Jun 2013 at 14:10.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
Its just that they decided to remove the instructional and commercial GA flights out of the data so that it looks as if the accident rate is below the average.
Relatively few Cirrus aircraft are used in instruction, although some are. So, why compare a Cirrus to Cessnas and Pipers and Diamonds and Grobs that differ both in purpose and expertise on board.
Relatively fewer Cirrus aircraft are involved in commercial flying, although some are. So why compare a Cirrus to twinjets or turboprops or twin engine planes, etc. flown by commercial pilots operating under Part 135 opspecs that involve check flights every 6 months?
And both of those activities involve about 40% of the flight activity in the annual GA survey conducted by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics for the FAA.
Since the overall GA rate includes a substantial amount (40%) of flight activity that does not relate to the Cirrus fleet, why compare the Cirrus fleet against the overall GA rate?
Ah, because it makes the Cirrus look bad, eh?
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its only an insult where I come from if you stick kiddie in front of it.
Have you also go the slide with the accidents V fatal ones for the personal and what phase of flight that was in.
You need to include the instructional because its mainly the same class of aircraft you are looking at. And also to be honest the only time I see a cirrus flying it has an instructor in the RHS where I am and that's 3 aircraft. Both instructors I hear on the kingairs as well so presume they know what they are doing.
The summary of the median hours is also quite interesting in that report. 45-55 years old and 200-250 hours on type is the danger window. Which I can understand to be honest.
Why include them? Because that's what a lot of people use them for as well as instruction. Gawd knows how many commercial wannabies have banged out the hours touring round FL flying 2-3 hour flights which is exactly what you guys do, just you go a bit further. A nav ex is just a flight from A to B which is exactly what you are doing.
The corporate and TP stuff is fair enough to leave out but you need to include all the data from that class of aircraft which is single engine petrol, single pilot. And I say again yours is a young fleet against the bulk of the other aircraft in that class.
Have you also go the slide with the accidents V fatal ones for the personal and what phase of flight that was in.
You need to include the instructional because its mainly the same class of aircraft you are looking at. And also to be honest the only time I see a cirrus flying it has an instructor in the RHS where I am and that's 3 aircraft. Both instructors I hear on the kingairs as well so presume they know what they are doing.
The summary of the median hours is also quite interesting in that report. 45-55 years old and 200-250 hours on type is the danger window. Which I can understand to be honest.
Why include them? Because that's what a lot of people use them for as well as instruction. Gawd knows how many commercial wannabies have banged out the hours touring round FL flying 2-3 hour flights which is exactly what you guys do, just you go a bit further. A nav ex is just a flight from A to B which is exactly what you are doing.
The corporate and TP stuff is fair enough to leave out but you need to include all the data from that class of aircraft which is single engine petrol, single pilot. And I say again yours is a young fleet against the bulk of the other aircraft in that class.
Last edited by mad_jock; 10th Jun 2013 at 14:32.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
Have you also go the slide with the accidents V fatal ones for the personal and what phase of flight that was in.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: May 2013
Location: South of the Zambezi
Age: 81
Posts: 9
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.
Which it did, once. By the grace of whatever, I was smack-bang o/h an isolated strip after crossing some 50nm of said inhospitable terrain, so no big deal, but it could have been very different.
Unusual circumstances, maybe, but applicable to a lot of people in the further-flung bits of the world, often flying VFR/CAVU and with no other complications and that mythology, if it does in fact exist, is not going to be too helpful to them. Sound training, airmanship, currency, and all the help you can get - including technological advances like 'chutes and proper training in their use - seem a much better bet to me; and if "the system" isn't working like that, maybe said system needs some fixing! OK, I'll get back in my box 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
Originally Posted by sdbeach
Originally Posted by mad_jock
Have you also go the slide with the accidents V fatal ones for the personal and what phase of flight that was in.
Other than anecdotal and personal observations, do you have any data about the flight activity of Cirrus aircraft?
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one looks as though it may run longer than the last one
Whilst MJ, and Sdbeach get very hung up on the stats, the fundamental gets lost in the noise. Training.
I have not flown a Cirrus, therefore cannot comment on its handling qualities, but, as with the aeroplane and its internal avionic systems, it would appear top of the range, and a very decent product.
I fly Beech products, but. as with Beech, Cirrus owners deem it necessary to have a proficiency training programme for some models. Beech, with the American Bonanza Society, have the BPPP, a proficiency flight training programme to ensure that when individuals purchase the product, they have adequate training resources, which will prepare them for the differences inherent in the product they have just taken ownership of.
Reason, these products fly like mini airliners, the newer ones now have sophisticated panels, be it Garmin, or Avidyne, or whatever, and they are fast. Therefore, they are not like other products where we just jump in, open the throttle and go. The owner/pilot requires to understand the intrinsic qualities of operating not only the aeroplane, ie take off/cruise/landing, but the systems and how they work, That requires training, and I firmly believe, that anyone who has the ability to purchase a new Cirrus 22, should have the ability to get themselves adequately comfortable with the systems.
And here is the rub. There will be some, armed with the knowledge that a BRS system sits in the roof, MAY think that they do not require all of the training, and fly off inadequately prepared for what they may encounter. That is not to say that other products, which do not have BRS, the individual may not have done it also, but it is my opinion, human beings being what they are, will attempt the flight.
It is anecdotal, but in a number of Cirrus accidents, this would appear to have been the case. That is not an argument for, or against, the chute, but I do think the point is relevent. So, COPA, or BPPP, or whatever, I would suggest would be a consideration for any potential pilot/operator.
And as an afterthought, the Beech progarmme came about with concerns over the ability of some to handle the products, and a reasonable number of fatalities in Beech products.
Whilst MJ, and Sdbeach get very hung up on the stats, the fundamental gets lost in the noise. Training.
I have not flown a Cirrus, therefore cannot comment on its handling qualities, but, as with the aeroplane and its internal avionic systems, it would appear top of the range, and a very decent product.
I fly Beech products, but. as with Beech, Cirrus owners deem it necessary to have a proficiency training programme for some models. Beech, with the American Bonanza Society, have the BPPP, a proficiency flight training programme to ensure that when individuals purchase the product, they have adequate training resources, which will prepare them for the differences inherent in the product they have just taken ownership of.
Reason, these products fly like mini airliners, the newer ones now have sophisticated panels, be it Garmin, or Avidyne, or whatever, and they are fast. Therefore, they are not like other products where we just jump in, open the throttle and go. The owner/pilot requires to understand the intrinsic qualities of operating not only the aeroplane, ie take off/cruise/landing, but the systems and how they work, That requires training, and I firmly believe, that anyone who has the ability to purchase a new Cirrus 22, should have the ability to get themselves adequately comfortable with the systems.
And here is the rub. There will be some, armed with the knowledge that a BRS system sits in the roof, MAY think that they do not require all of the training, and fly off inadequately prepared for what they may encounter. That is not to say that other products, which do not have BRS, the individual may not have done it also, but it is my opinion, human beings being what they are, will attempt the flight.
It is anecdotal, but in a number of Cirrus accidents, this would appear to have been the case. That is not an argument for, or against, the chute, but I do think the point is relevent. So, COPA, or BPPP, or whatever, I would suggest would be a consideration for any potential pilot/operator.
And as an afterthought, the Beech progarmme came about with concerns over the ability of some to handle the products, and a reasonable number of fatalities in Beech products.
Last edited by maxred; 10th Jun 2013 at 16:03.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maxred
And as an afterthought, the Beech progarmme came about with concerns over the ability of some to handle the products, and a reasonable number of fatalities in Beech products.
Cheers
Rick
Last edited by sdbeach; 10th Jun 2013 at 16:13.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its training I have actually been banging on about and the suitability of the pilost that have been flying them.
The chute cures all mentality is the problem along with dubious claims that it its currently a safety improvement.
In the future it may well be but as it stands currently having a cirrus with a chute doesn't improve your chances in any significant way compared to any other type.
The chute cures all mentality is the problem along with dubious claims that it its currently a safety improvement.
In the future it may well be but as it stands currently having a cirrus with a chute doesn't improve your chances in any significant way compared to any other type.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the future it may well be but as it stands currently having a cirrus with a chute doesn't improve your chances in any significant way compared to any other type
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
Its training I have actually been banging on about and the suitability of the pilost that have been flying them.
Originally Posted by mad_jock
The chute cures all mentality is the problem
Originally Posted by mad_jock
... along with dubious claims that it its currently a safety improvement.
In the future it may well be but as it stands currently having a cirrus with a chute doesn't improve your chances in any significant way compared to any other type.
In the future it may well be but as it stands currently having a cirrus with a chute doesn't improve your chances in any significant way compared to any other type.
For the 70 people who survived a Cirrus parachute deployment, they might differ with your assessment.
For the 115 people who died in a Cirrus fatal accident where the accident chain was similar to a survivable chute pull, they might wish to be among the survivors.
For the skeptics, nothing seems logical to justify pulling the parachute.
If it were simply fixable by improved training, then why don't we see lots and lots of improvement over the past several decades when the fatal accident rate has not gone down much in other types of aircraft? Surely, those instructors in other types of aircraft realize the challenges. Yet, we see fatal accidents in other types over and over and over again.
Cheers
Rick
operations that solely involve IFR flights from one major airport to another.
While we all wish nobody would be stupid and obviously should actively promote good initial and recurrent training the unfortunate reality is non professional part time pilots are still sometimes going to get in over their heads. I am sure this pilot did not start his flight with the intention of getting so bent out of shape he felt the only alternative was to pull the chute.
The bottom line with respect to this accident is simple. Better he floated to the ground at 25 kts then crashed in a vertical dive doing 200 kts after losing control, killing everyone in the plane and maybe someone on the ground.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 10th Jun 2013 at 17:24.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But out of that 115 how many of them wouldn't have been in the air anyway if it wasn't for the magical chute in the back.
Do an experiment next time you run one of your courses.
get your pilots to plan a flight in a cirrus and then progressively drop the wx on them on route with a natural avoid area and see when they bug out.
With a similar experienced group of pilots get them to plan the same route but in a C182 or the like without a chute. And see what route they take and when they bug out.
If there is a difference between the two groups either with the routing or the bug out point you have got problems with the mentality of pushing it just because the chute is on board.
Its not the chute we have issues with when used after all other forms of airmanship and sensible pre-caution have been taken.
Yes mother nature is a bitch and you can get your arse bitten. 95% of being a pilot is not to stick your arse in mothers mouth to begin with.
Do an experiment next time you run one of your courses.
get your pilots to plan a flight in a cirrus and then progressively drop the wx on them on route with a natural avoid area and see when they bug out.
With a similar experienced group of pilots get them to plan the same route but in a C182 or the like without a chute. And see what route they take and when they bug out.
If there is a difference between the two groups either with the routing or the bug out point you have got problems with the mentality of pushing it just because the chute is on board.
Its not the chute we have issues with when used after all other forms of airmanship and sensible pre-caution have been taken.
Yes mother nature is a bitch and you can get your arse bitten. 95% of being a pilot is not to stick your arse in mothers mouth to begin with.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do wonder why the prop was turning on impact, barring something really odd like a snapped crankshaft allowing the engine to windmill at hardly any forward speed, one has to assume the bloke didnt even switch the bl00dy mags off............which would be a tad remiss, doncha thunk
The cozy-safe effect of the BRS everyone is talking about, is a known factor...its called 'Risk Compensation' and is a well researched human reaction..it exists and will be a factor in EVERY accident where there is a percieved safety net
You really can't argue that it isnt so, only how large the effect is
The cozy-safe effect of the BRS everyone is talking about, is a known factor...its called 'Risk Compensation' and is a well researched human reaction..it exists and will be a factor in EVERY accident where there is a percieved safety net
You really can't argue that it isnt so, only how large the effect is
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do wonder why the prop was turning on impact, barring something really odd like a snapped crankshaft allowing the engine to windmill at hardly any forward speed, one has to assume the bloke didnt even switch the bl00dy mags off............which would be a tad remiss, doncha thunk
I would like to think in the same situation I would be aware enough to do all the post CAPS checks as i have practiced them, but who knows.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
But out of that 115 how many of them wouldn't have been in the air anyway if it wasn't for the magical chute in the back.
Do an experiment next time you run one of your courses.
get your pilots to plan a flight in a cirrus and then progressively drop the wx on them on route with a natural avoid area and see when they bug out.
Do an experiment next time you run one of your courses.
get your pilots to plan a flight in a cirrus and then progressively drop the wx on them on route with a natural avoid area and see when they bug out.
Originally Posted by mad_jock
With a similar experienced group of pilots get them to plan the same route but in a C182 or the like without a chute. And see what route they take and when they bug out.
If there is a difference between the two groups either with the routing or the bug out point you have got problems with the mentality of pushing it just because the chute is on board.
If there is a difference between the two groups either with the routing or the bug out point you have got problems with the mentality of pushing it just because the chute is on board.
FYI, it costs COPA members about a quarter of a million dollars to run the CPPP programs. And we price things to break even.
Originally Posted by mad_jock
Its not the chute we have issues with when used after all other forms of airmanship and sensible pre-caution have been taken.
You've just proved it can be a Sisyphean task.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've just proved it can be a Sisyphean task.
MJ- from a quick google search
n
(Myth & Legend / Classical Myth & Legend) Greek myth a king of Corinth, punished in Hades for his misdeeds by eternally having to roll a heavy stone up a hill: every time he approached the top, the stone escaped his grasp and rolled to the bottom
(Myth & Legend / Classical Myth & Legend) Greek myth a king of Corinth, punished in Hades for his misdeeds by eternally having to roll a heavy stone up a hill: every time he approached the top, the stone escaped his grasp and rolled to the bottom
Rick, during that beer, I watched the animation I believe you have just posted regarding the Cirrus aerobatic event. That is quite shocking, and disturbing.
Last edited by maxred; 10th Jun 2013 at 20:10.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, someone died from being stupid. And all of a sudden, it is "shocking" and "disturbing". Whereas, if they survive being stupid...
The bigotry is what is shocking and disturbing.
The bigotry is what is shocking and disturbing.
Last edited by thborchert; 10th Jun 2013 at 20:40.