Aircraft lands in Cheltenham garden
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Cirrus training program places all the emphasis on where it matters, recognizing and recovering from the developing bad situation before the aircraft gets close to stalling.
Last edited by Gertrude the Wombat; 9th Jun 2013 at 22:09.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sad part is the fact that there are so many Cirrus pilots that don't take the training, and they seem to be the ones who are having the accidents.
Rick is a long term prolific contributor and safety guru to the COPA organisation and as I understand it on a purely volunteer basis like all COPA members.
Got examples of general aviation accidents?
London, 2013, one pedestrian killed by helicopter crash.
MANILA, 2011, at least 13 people died and several others injured when a light twin aircraft crashed into a shanty town.
FBW
Last edited by Fly-by-Wife; 9th Jun 2013 at 23:12.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reno was an air race where a large number of people gathered to watch the racing. Not commercial flying (no paying passengers or cargo) but also not GA as I think of it.
The London helicopter crash was a commercial flight.
And the Manilla crash I think you mean was also commercial - it was a Queen Air plane on a cargo flight, on 10th Dec 2011.
The London helicopter crash was a commercial flight.
And the Manilla crash I think you mean was also commercial - it was a Queen Air plane on a cargo flight, on 10th Dec 2011.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to think I had a successful research career before taking up aviation. Of course, you didn't know that, but disrespectful potshots are easy, eh?
I don't have a clue about the US safety databases but the UK ones carry the airframe manufacture date for any accident.
You could just go for the types which have been certified in the last 15 years and then factor for the fleet size.
As I said before the way you factor the data makes a huge difference.
Take off and landing is by far the most risky stages of flight so by removing the instructional flights and commercial you have removed the most exposure to risk flights. ie the ones that do the most take off's and landings in instructional and the commercial are the ones which are exposed to the barely legal wx. So to me anyway its is wrong to discount that data.
Another way you could look at the data is to look at the number of flights irrespective of the length of the flight. But again that won't produce the effect your looking for as C150/C152's and other training flights are banging out the sectors a day without having many problems.
And it would change my view. Just like as BPF says I was a teach them spinning type of instructor and when looking at the data am now firmly in the teach them how not to get in the situation of a likely spin.
Although for advanced handling for experienced pilots post PPL when done by an aero's instructor that knows what they are doing and in a machine that's fit for purpose I think its good training even if only done once.
And GA to me is anything with a single pilot, one engine and under 5700kg.
Last edited by mad_jock; 10th Jun 2013 at 08:26.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could just go for the types which have been certified in the last 15 years and then factor for the fleet size.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can see that already by the data given on the cirrius site.
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.
The fact that those flights in general are operated in the risker phases of flight for longer ie takeoff and approach/landing should mean that they have a higher risk so therefore higher chance of fatalities. But that's not shown out. They have to remove them to make the numbers look good. I might add all the agricultural crop spraying and the like will be in there as well which is even higher risk again.
In general the training fleets are 20-40 years old with some new machines thrown in. And the commercials will be slightly younger but the majority of them will be more than 10 years old.
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.
The fact that those flights in general are operated in the risker phases of flight for longer ie takeoff and approach/landing should mean that they have a higher risk so therefore higher chance of fatalities. But that's not shown out. They have to remove them to make the numbers look good. I might add all the agricultural crop spraying and the like will be in there as well which is even higher risk again.
In general the training fleets are 20-40 years old with some new machines thrown in. And the commercials will be slightly younger but the majority of them will be more than 10 years old.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more try, just because this quote makes it such a good starting point:
Great sentiment! And so right, in an ideal world. However, those pilots ARE up there. Have a look at the accident statistics and you see that they are up there in all kinds of aircraft - Cessnas, Pipers, Airbii, Twin Otters and, yes, Cirrii. So our first point of discussion becomes:
1. Do Cirrus pilots have a higher percentage of "losing a healthy aircraft" than pilots of other aircraft? This has been analyzed quite a bit. The only person to present actual numbers in this thread so far has been Rick. The answer (not only from Rick, but from all who have actually looked at the numbers) seems to be: No, Cirrus pilots do not have a higher percentage of doing dumb stuff than the rest of GA. Anyone (and especially mad_jock), feel free to present numbers showing otherwise. Until you do, just claiming something doesn't make it so.
So, as regrettable as it might be, pilots do end up there. In all kinds of airplanes. We can debate how training and regulation might change that. We can also debate which manufacturers involve themselves much in training and which don't. But leaving that discussion aside and accepting the fact that pilots DO mess up in "healthy" airplanes, the next point of discussion now becomes:
2. Should pilots "losing a perfectly healthy aircraft" be left to crash and die or is there something wrong with offering them a way out? Frankly, I'm not even willing to debate that. I consider myself a master cynic, but that exceeds my limits.
Finally, the big hit with some folks in this thread:
3. Are innocent bystanders more endangered by our pilot WHO HAS LOST IT ("it" being control of the aircraft) going down in a high-energy impact at full speed, or at a tiny fraction of that energy under parachute, with a loud bang announcing its opening? Again, the answer is kind of obvious.
So, here we are. Unless someone can prove with actual numbers that a Cirrus somehow changes the propensity of pilots to do dumb stuff (which Rick has tried - and failed), we're left with
a) questions/problems applying to aviation in general, but not specific to the Cirrus.
b) questions around a safety device that has the chance to change the outcome of something that pilots get themselves into with disturbing regularity regardless of what aircraft they fly. Change the outcome both for those in the aircraft AND outside, I might add.
Sorry, I can't. Help me, please.
They did? How do you know? Why don't you put back in what you consider missing and show us those new numbers? I can't see what you seem to see. I don't know all these numbers by heart. Help me, please.
Thanks!
sorry but if a pilot looses a healthy aircraft on instruments he should not be there!
1. Do Cirrus pilots have a higher percentage of "losing a healthy aircraft" than pilots of other aircraft? This has been analyzed quite a bit. The only person to present actual numbers in this thread so far has been Rick. The answer (not only from Rick, but from all who have actually looked at the numbers) seems to be: No, Cirrus pilots do not have a higher percentage of doing dumb stuff than the rest of GA. Anyone (and especially mad_jock), feel free to present numbers showing otherwise. Until you do, just claiming something doesn't make it so.
So, as regrettable as it might be, pilots do end up there. In all kinds of airplanes. We can debate how training and regulation might change that. We can also debate which manufacturers involve themselves much in training and which don't. But leaving that discussion aside and accepting the fact that pilots DO mess up in "healthy" airplanes, the next point of discussion now becomes:
2. Should pilots "losing a perfectly healthy aircraft" be left to crash and die or is there something wrong with offering them a way out? Frankly, I'm not even willing to debate that. I consider myself a master cynic, but that exceeds my limits.
Finally, the big hit with some folks in this thread:
3. Are innocent bystanders more endangered by our pilot WHO HAS LOST IT ("it" being control of the aircraft) going down in a high-energy impact at full speed, or at a tiny fraction of that energy under parachute, with a loud bang announcing its opening? Again, the answer is kind of obvious.
So, here we are. Unless someone can prove with actual numbers that a Cirrus somehow changes the propensity of pilots to do dumb stuff (which Rick has tried - and failed), we're left with
a) questions/problems applying to aviation in general, but not specific to the Cirrus.
b) questions around a safety device that has the chance to change the outcome of something that pilots get themselves into with disturbing regularity regardless of what aircraft they fly. Change the outcome both for those in the aircraft AND outside, I might add.
We can see that already by the data given on the cirrius site.
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.
Thanks!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because its a pain in the backside to extract them from a PDF file.
But basically the green line on the graph from cirrus pilots is the national average and the cirrus is above it. They decided that because the instruction flights and other GA have such a low fatality rate they would remove them which then brought the national average up to make the cirrus look safer.
The fact is though that the majority of the aircraft missed out will be in the +10 years old with steam instruments and age issues. Also as well several of the accidents/incidence have also been on instruction flights with the higher risk carried with that.
COPA Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
Formalised quality training like that in my opinion will do more to reduce fatalities than having a chute in the back. Linked in with a couple of hours abnormal procedures in the sim.
Funnily enough its basically what a commercial pilot has to do to renew their type rating in Europe. But we do also get a refresher every 6 months but without the rating renewal.
So if your really are serious about wanting to protect yourself and loved ones while flying go and do something like that course every year and an abnormal procedures sim session.
In the commercial world the sim sessions are tapered for your experience. Getting progressively harder as you get more experience. There is also nothing to stop you requesting situations which you have experienced in the last year to revisit them to see if there was a better solution to the one which you used.
Perfect example for this chap if the reports about the runway change are correct. Get into the sim set it up again and this time have a play with the different ways of dealing with it. Then go flying again.
But basically the green line on the graph from cirrus pilots is the national average and the cirrus is above it. They decided that because the instruction flights and other GA have such a low fatality rate they would remove them which then brought the national average up to make the cirrus look safer.
The fact is though that the majority of the aircraft missed out will be in the +10 years old with steam instruments and age issues. Also as well several of the accidents/incidence have also been on instruction flights with the higher risk carried with that.
COPA Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program (CPPP) - Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
Formalised quality training like that in my opinion will do more to reduce fatalities than having a chute in the back. Linked in with a couple of hours abnormal procedures in the sim.
Funnily enough its basically what a commercial pilot has to do to renew their type rating in Europe. But we do also get a refresher every 6 months but without the rating renewal.
So if your really are serious about wanting to protect yourself and loved ones while flying go and do something like that course every year and an abnormal procedures sim session.
In the commercial world the sim sessions are tapered for your experience. Getting progressively harder as you get more experience. There is also nothing to stop you requesting situations which you have experienced in the last year to revisit them to see if there was a better solution to the one which you used.
Perfect example for this chap if the reports about the runway change are correct. Get into the sim set it up again and this time have a play with the different ways of dealing with it. Then go flying again.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Formalised quality training like that in my opinion will do more to reduce fatalities than having a chute in the back.
Perfect example for this chap if the reports about the runway change are correct. Get into the sim set it up again and this time have a play with the different ways of dealing with it. Then go flying again.
Last edited by thborchert; 10th Jun 2013 at 11:23.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope he shouldn't have been PIC of the aircraft if he couldn't have handled such a change without crashing.
Mind you at least in Europe now they will be tested every year for the IR it may help matters.
The cross over competency test failure rate is going to be interesting. Especially as the examiner is centrally issued and a tame one can't bought in. And you can't use the AP for the initial or the advanced features of the nav kit.
Mind you at least in Europe now they will be tested every year for the IR it may help matters.
The cross over competency test failure rate is going to be interesting. Especially as the examiner is centrally issued and a tame one can't bought in. And you can't use the AP for the initial or the advanced features of the nav kit.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][or at a tiny fraction of that energy under parachute, with a loud bang announcing its opening? Again, the answer is kind of obvious./QUOTE]
Not really!.....All UK lorries seem to be fitted with an ear-piercing bleeper ,interspersed with a synthesised voice" caution , vehicle reversing"
What's to stop similar technology when the rocket pops?
BLEEP..."Caution, uncontrolled aircraft landing"..........BLEEP ..."Caution, uncontrolled aircraft landing".......BLEEP..........
The vegetables standing gawking would then not be able to claim..."Well, it come out of nowhere , Di'n it....there weren't no noise or nuffink, it were eerie ,like. Well, there were a bang but I fort it were the local dealer's door bein stove in again by the drug squad.* "
* alter local vernacular as required
Not really!.....All UK lorries seem to be fitted with an ear-piercing bleeper ,interspersed with a synthesised voice" caution , vehicle reversing"
What's to stop similar technology when the rocket pops?
BLEEP..."Caution, uncontrolled aircraft landing"..........BLEEP ..."Caution, uncontrolled aircraft landing".......BLEEP..........
The vegetables standing gawking would then not be able to claim..."Well, it come out of nowhere , Di'n it....there weren't no noise or nuffink, it were eerie ,like. Well, there were a bang but I fort it were the local dealer's door bein stove in again by the drug squad.* "
* alter local vernacular as required
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope he shouldn't have been PIC of the aircraft if he couldn't have handled such a change without crashing.
Great soundbite, but completely against all practical experience. People do dumb stuff. No amount of testing and training will get around that. The number of airline crew screwing up royally is endless.
Or, in other words: Chute happens! Deal with it!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The second two examples you quoted whilst not large aircraft were both flights where the pilot was being paid. There are commercial elements to the racing as the spectators paid to watch, plus a website urging us to donate, plus sponsors, plus mega-bucks spent on the planes. Even if the pilots are not paid it's about as amateur as F1 racing is.
The second two examples would also have needed a CPL and I believe the racing has specific licence requirements as well.
Instructional flying for a PPL is a form of commercial flying by my definition - P1 is being paid and has specific licence and medical requitements to fulfill.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an example that should fit the requested mold. One of very few. Wanna bet what the outcome would have been with a chute? Chances of lethally hitting that jogger when coming down vertically as opposed to laterally coming in at 65 or so knots? And look how much good the "pilot under control of the aircraft" bit did!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much info has come out on this but looking at RGV's statement on Flyer (they must have spoken to the pilot) and assuming that is really what happened, this particular chute pull is going to cause a lot of questions to be asked, and the Cirrus BRS chute "pull the chute when in any trouble whatsoever" position is going to be even harder to defend than it was on previous occasions.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
Totally agree I think there needs to be far more thought and TRAINING concerning when and where to pull instead of the stick heads in the sand attitude by some here
Pace
Totally agree I think there needs to be far more thought and TRAINING concerning when and where to pull instead of the stick heads in the sand attitude by some here
Pace