Cabanaboy

Cirrus Down Jan 8 2016

Recommended Posts

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I'll make a deal with you. I won't tell you how to live your life and you don't tell me. OK? I don't care if you think I'm a fool.

FWIW I've had 4 serious motorcycle wrecks, totaled two cars (with motorcycles) in both of those accidents I was wearing nothing but shorts, t shirt and flip flops. In both instances my injuries amounted sprained thumbs from being thrown off the bike with great force. I flew through the air did two flips and landed on my butt, both times. So I'm very lucky. My last motorcycle wreck was in 1979. I have close to 300,000 miles on motorcycles. I have had a street bike to ride continuously for 42 years.

Now when I ride my dirt bike, I dress up like a ninja worrier because I know I'll crash.

Deal.  I will just look at you and think my Forrest Gump thoughts...

"Stupid is as Stupid DOES"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bonal said:

one thing is certain we are all going to die.

Huh?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Don't you recognize your neighbors? 

 

Check my avatar, I'm not in WV anymore. It was ranked as the Least Healthy State two years in a row, and was reputed to have more pizza joints in Huntington alone than gyms in the whole state . . .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hank said:

Check my avatar, I'm not in WV anymore. It was ranked as the Least Healthy State two years in a row, and was reputed to have more pizza joints in Huntington alone than gyms in the whole state . . .

 

I should have clarified, "your OLD (fat) neighbors"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 13, 2016 at 0:00 PM, DXB said:

 I'm not a particularly skilled pilot, and I would buy a plane with a chute in a heartbeat if my resources were unlimited. But poor fuel planning is a human factor that can be eliminated with the most basic training combined with a minimum ethic of individual responsibility - you don't have to be Bob Hoover to ensure you have ample fuel margins. In cases like this one, responsibility gets eroded by reliance on a bail out option that has its own risks.  And the company's tacitly promoting such reliance through marketing doesn't exactly help aviation.  There are indeed occasional instances where the minimal skills and planning would not have been enough, and yet the chute saved some lives.  But a save is not a f'n save.  

Agreed! Wow! I could not have said it better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You liked in original...AND bumped with a personal quote.  Yes, you do agree.  I just wish I looked as awesome as Bob in the straw hat...

I got to hear him speak in front of a FlugWerk FW-190 re-make at Oshkosh a few years ago.  The guy still looks (and I bet he still can/could) fly the $%^& out of anything put in front of him.  RABob Hoover just reeks "Cool" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 13, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Tom said:

Flying GA planes places an individual at several times the risk of death vs traveling by car for a given trip.  Thus, having a GA plane encourages riskier behavior (vs the safer drive) because "I can get there earlier."   So do you chute-haters advocate getting rid of GA aircraft because GA aircraft cause people to take unnecessary risks in travel?  How ignorant does that sound?

It is undeniable that pilots take additional risks because of the presence of the chute.  But this in an incremental risk.  Flying with or without a chute is MUCH more dangerous than driving.  Moreover, most importantly, the chute, when used appropriately, as advocated by the anti-chute folks, will close the risk delta between GA flying and driving.

Saying "them there chutes makes you more likely to take risks and you shouldn't have a chute" is just plain ignorant.  Cirrus has produced over 6,000 airplanes.  In the aggregate the addition of the fleet has been good for the image of GA and the overall GA fleet.

You clearly have an ax to grind. No one "hates chutes" or is "anti-chute". Most people just hate stupid and careless behavior in an airplane. I think that Cirrus pilots especially are lulled into a sense of security because they have a unique out. It is reflected in their behavior, especially the early accident stats. A guy in my state pulled a chute during a door pop in IMC, is that a F'n save? How about the couple I met last summer at CBE that inspired this thread:

Your examples are pisspoor. Any aircraft can can crash on approach in IMC. Fly into an imbedded T-storm the way Crossfield did and you'd better be wearing the chute. A chute can save a pilot from himself as Cirrus pilots have proved time and time again. You act as if we should all be celebrating the aeronautical douche baggery displayed in pulling a chute after running out of fuel. What if he'd landed on someone? It's going to happen before too long. I can see it now; a flying member of the bourgeoisie pulls chute to save himself from his own stupidity and lands on a ground bound members of the proletariat, killing innocents. That's an issue we'll all have to deal with. The insurance costs of repeatedly replacing totaled airplanes that didn't need to be totaled is a good busines plan for Cirrus, but at some point totaling airplanes that's might have just been dead sticked is going to get expensive. Again, no one hates chutes; I just think people dislike it when they're used as a replacement for sound judgement. A save is indeed not a F'n save.

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shadrach said:

You clearly have an ax to grind. No one "hates chutes" or is "anti-chute". Most people just hate stupid and careless behavior in an airplane. I think that Cirrus pilots especially are lulled into a sense of security because they have a unique out. It is reflected in their behavior, especially the early accident stats. A guy in my state pulled a chute during a door pop in IMC, is that a F'n save? How about the couple I met last summer at CBE that inspired this thread:

The ax to grind is with the sheer hubristic stupidity that assumes that Mooney (or any other flavor of pilot) is inherently less likely to cause a fatal accident than a Cirrus pilot.  The evidence tells a different story.  The reality is that know-it-alls like to lambaste living Cirrus pilots for foolish decisions that kills all other pilots.  The same know-it-alls say things like "RIP" and "prayers to the family" when other pilots make fatal mistakes for want of better skills, proficiency, or decision-making.  The ax to grind is with the intellectually-deficient discourse that ignores one sobering reality while discounting the value of another.  Do Cirrus pilots take more risks?  Of course--they've admitted it. But dead men tell no tales and some of us conveniently ignore this.

According the the NTSB database:
In the first 16 years of production, where Cirrus produced over 6,000 airframes, the fleet lost 108 airframes to fatal accidents.
Between 1964 and 1971, 7 of the first 16 years of Mooney production, with a fleet of +/- 6,000 (likely under) Mooney lost 175 airframes to fatal accidents--not counting the first 8 years!.  Mooney pilots are superior?  Really?

A related statistic,
in 16 years Cirrus has lost 108 aiframes of a fleet of 6,000+ to fatal accidents
In 60 years Mooney has lost 659 airframes of a fleet of 10,300+ to fatal accidents
Cirrus doesn't seem to be on pace to catch up with Mooney.

Curious that Cirrus folks consider there to be 60 accident "saves" to date (108+60=168, closer to the Mooney airframe fatal loss rate).

Yes an incidence statistic (i.e. fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours) would be more precise but there is no rational argument to be made that there is a statistically significant higher flight hour total of the early Mooney fleet that would allow the accident incidence to reach parity with the Cirrus fleet or to favor the Mooney.  No, I'm not afraid of my shadow or flying, I'm not anti-Mooney or pro-Cirrus.  I am pro-chute because, like fire, guns, and knives, when on-hand and used correctly they offer great utility. 

So what kinds of pilots created all those Mooney airframe fatal losses?  What will it take for you to understand that they're the same kind of pilots that get lambasted for pulling the chute?  The old "they take risks" argument is, at this point in history distracting away from the implementation of a technology that those of us who can afford it want and those who can't afford seem to denigrate (and to chute-haters, denigrate means 'put down').  [credit to Bob Newhart]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tom said:

The ax to grind is with the sheer hubristic stupidity that assumes that Mooney (or any other flavor of pilot) is inherently less likely to cause a fatal accident than a Cirrus pilot.  The evidence tells a different story.  The reality is that know-it-alls like to lambaste living Cirrus pilots for foolish decisions that kills all other pilots.  The same know-it-alls say things like "RIP" and "prayers to the family" when other pilots make fatal mistakes for want of better skills, proficiency, or decision-making.  The ax to grind is with the intellectually-deficient discourse that ignores one sobering reality while discounting the value of another.  Do Cirrus pilots take more risks?  Of course--they've admitted it. But dead men tell no tales and some of us conveniently ignore this.

According the the NTSB database:
In the first 16 years of production, where Cirrus produced over 6,000 airframes, the fleet lost 108 airframes to fatal accidents.
Between 1964 and 1971, 7 of the first 16 years of Mooney production, with a fleet of +/- 6,000 (likely under) Mooney lost 175 airframes to fatal accidents--not counting the first 8 years!.  Mooney pilots are superior?  Really?

A related statistic,
in 16 years Cirrus has lost 108 aiframes of a fleet of 6,000+ to fatal accidents
In 60 years Mooney has lost 659 airframes of a fleet of 10,300+ to fatal accidents
Cirrus doesn't seem to be on pace to catch up with Mooney.

Curious that Cirrus folks consider there to be 60 accident "saves" to date (108+60=168, closer to the Mooney airframe fatal loss rate).

Yes an incidence statistic (i.e. fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours) would be more precise but there is no rational argument to be made that there is a statistically significant higher flight hour total of the early Mooney fleet that would allow the accident incidence to reach parity with the Cirrus fleet or to favor the Mooney.  No, I'm not afraid of my shadow or flying, I'm not anti-Mooney or pro-Cirrus.  I am pro-chute because, like fire, guns, and knives, when on-hand and used correctly they offer great utility. 

So what kinds of pilots created all those Mooney airframe fatal losses?  What will it take for you to understand that they're the same kind of pilots that get lambasted for pulling the chute?  The old "they take risks" argument is, at this point in history distracting away from the implementation of a technology that those of us who can afford it want and those who can't afford seem to denigrate (and to chute-haters, denigrate means 'put down').  [credit to Bob Newhart]

 

 

If you remove the chute saves (assuming the DB in the AC thought he was going to Die and gave up) and replace them with fatals aper 100,000 flight hours instead of your cherry picked and statistically insignificant airframes lost to total airframes manufactured (which leaves out so many things of statistical significance), what kind accident rate does that yield? You're comparing technically advanced aircraft with the technology that aircraft were equipped with in 1964?  Really? Cirrus aircraft were born with glass cockpits, sophisticated autopilots and in general are designed to make flying as easy as possible. You're comparing them to aircraft made and outfitted with 60 year old tech?  You're not much of a statistician...  You're not even very good at creating conflict, given your pisspoor analysis.  

I am one person and I do not seek out Cirrus pilots to make fun of. However, I have witnessed the aftermath of one pilot who pulled a chute in IMC after a door pop on climb out.  He had a full autopilot as well as a "level" button, yet he went for the chute and ended up coming down on a moving truck in a neighborhood where several of my colleagues lived. He had no business taking off in what he took off in, but hey, he had a chute. Then there's pilot I mentioned earlier who landed with no oil pressure and put 4qts in his plane and departed with his wife on 100NM trip over forested and mountainous terrain.  This experience is anecdotal I know. However, I think insurance companies must have data you don't. Go get a quote on a new SR22T and an M20TN insure them for the same hull value and tell me what the rates are.  Last I was told, Cirrus is significantly more to insure?  Why do you think that is?  I think Cirrus makes a wonderful AC.  I think they've done a lot for GA.  I also think it has come at a cost.  Luring folks in that would have set on the side lines has a cost. One of the costs is reading the incoherent rants of fanboys like you...

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

If you are selling something, it's not working...

There are several reasons Mooney pilots don't purchase parachutes. I believe the most significant reason is there isn't one available for consideration.

Adding safety devices like new updated safety belts is a challenge for many owners.  It takes Money that some don't have.  It takes technology that some cannot find.  It takes time to do the research to separate out the long winded discussions filled with innuendos.

I have been the author of the simple statement 'prayers'.  I have offered that statement too many times.  It came from the heart.

What did you want to accomplish?

I hope it is more than to stir the pot after the recent loss of a Mooney pilot traveling on a vacation with his family.

If you are trying to gain support for a project, there has got to be a better way than this.

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Incoherent ramblings of fanboys like you"...

Succinct/Accurate/Funny.

You win.

Bob Newhart is funny.  Commedian's don't explain their humour.  They are just funny.  Those that feel it is necessary to explain words like denigrate show themselves for who they are: pompous/arrogant/blowhards.

Don't be "that guy".  Love the Cirrus and it's owners, but HATE the sins of poor planning/decision making and airmanship resulting in denying Darwin his just rewards.

Cirrus airplanes are "Fool-Proof"

I like having Fools in this world.  I can relate with them.

I am just going to hold out until they install  the directional chute option...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

You liked in original...AND bumped with a personal quote.  Yes, you do agree.  I just wish I looked as awesome as Bob in the straw hat...

I got to hear him speak in front of a FlugWerk FW-190 re-make at Oshkosh a few years ago.  The guy still looks (and I bet he still can/could) fly the $%^& out of anything put in front of him.  RABob Hoover just reeks "Cool" to me.

 

DSC01264.JPG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

If you remove the chute saves (assuming the DB in the AC thought he was going to Die and gave up) and replace them with fatals aper 100,000 flight hours instead of your cherry picked and statistically insignificant airframes lost to total airframes manufactured (which leaves out so many things of statistically significance), what kind accident rate does that yield? You're comparing technically advanced aircraft with the technology that aircraft were equipped with in 1964?  Really? Cirrus aircraft were born with glass cockpits, sophisticated autopilots and in general are designed to make flying as easy as possible. You're comparing them to aircraft made and outfitted with 60 year old tech?  You're not much of a statistician...  You're not even very good at creating conflict, given your pisspoor analysis.  

I am one person and I do not seek out Cirrus pilots to make fun of. However, I have witnessed the aftermath of one pilot who pulled a chute in IMC after a door pop on climb out.  He had a full autopilot as well as a "level" button, yet he went for the chute and ended up coming down on a moving truck in a neighborhood where several of my colleagues lived. He had no business taking off in what he took off in, but hey, he had a chute. Then there's pilot I mentioned earlier who landed with no oil pressure and put 4qts in his plane and departed with his wife on 100NM trip over forested and mountainous terrain.  This experience is anecdotal I know. However, I think insurance companies must have data you don't. Go get a quote on a new SR22T and an M20TN insure them for the same hull value and tell me what the rates are.  Last I was told, Cirrus is significantly more to insure?  Why do you think that is?  I think Cirrus makes a wonderful AC.  I think they've done a lot for GA.  I also think it has come at a cost.  Luring folks in that would have set on the side lines has a cost. One of the costs is reading the incoherent rants of fanboys like you...

You make two general points:
1)  Mooney has lost a lot more airframes to fatal accidents because Mooneys fly more and because Cirrus aircraft have "modern" cockpits
2)  Insurance rates are higher on Cirrus aircraft, therefore one should conclude that Cirrus aircraft are less safe

Obviously it's impossible to determine the true fleet hours necessary to calculate the incidence. Airframe fatal loss rates are used as a surrogate for fatal accident incidence in such discussions.  Look up Collins' article on Mooney safety-he uses basically the same Mooney numbers that I provided.  It's beyond reasonable to assume that Mooney aircraft between 1964 and 1971 had 50% higher fleet hours than the cirrus fleet did between 1999 and 2016.  The numbers are not cherry-picked.  They're simply the total first 16 years of the Cirrus fleet vs 7 of the first years of the Mooney fleet (not even the first 9 years of the Mooney fleet when wood tails were lost, the airframe was new, etc).  NTSB simply doesn't have the 1955-1963 numbers online available for reference here--if they did, I'd provide them--and it's illogical that it would make it look better for Mooney. 

Starting in something like 1966 PC became standard, no? Much of the Mooney fleet between 1966 and 1971 had wing-levelers but still had a substantially higher airframe fatal loss rate.  Don't forget that between 1964-1971 men were men and pilots were spin-trained.

Don't forget that the argument to bring a Mooney on-par safety wise to a chute equipped plane is for the Mooney pilot to fly more and train more.  That argument has nothing to do with glass panels, GPS, or weather satellites.  But are you otherwise really arguing that glass panels, GPS, weather satellites, etc, have reduced the fatal accident rate by 50+%?  If this is the case, wouldn't insurance companies offer much lower rates on aircraft that have glass panels, GPS, and can talk to weather satellites? 

In your analysis you are commingling unrelated concepts of fatal accident rates and insurance rates.  In the former, people are dead; in the latter, an entity is asking for a sum that it feels comfortable taking in exchange for risking some of its own assets.  I've got an old truck without anti-lock brakes, without airbags, with a non-collapsible steering column to rest my spleen on in the event of an accident.  The insurance company insures it for $300 a year.  Does this really mean it's more safe than a new Volvo with a $2000 annual premium?  Incoherent rant you say?

My point is to provide evidence that discredits the idea that Cirrus aircraft pilots are in the aggregate any worse than other pilots, and to challenge the notion that "all you need to achieve chute equipped safety status is more hours and training."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

Bob Newhart is funny.  Commedian's don't explain their humour.  They are just funny.  Those that feel it is necessary to explain words like denigrate show themselves for who they are: pompous/arrogant/blowhards.

iWKad22.jpg

"I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'."

Bob Newhart

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, MyNameIsNobody said:

Just to be clear...Me thinks you thunk me a goober...so I am clarifying that I kinda thought same of someone else.

Goober lives in Mayberry and you live in Iowa. Proof, you can't be Goober. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to interrupt the bickering with an semi-intelligent observation. But here goes:

Doesn't this this chute advancement tie into a recent topic of interest to us all?

The added safety of Technological advancements versus the degradation and slow loss of basic pilot skills and judgement.

Workload reducers versus complacent pilots losing proficiency. Glass with autopilt coupled versus ability to hand fly the whole way, down to minimums .. Fuel flow meter tied into GPS as opposed to tracking our own fuel consumption and burn rates. Tracking progress and Knowing exactly where you are the map versus letting the ForeFlight Airplane show you.

Weve all made poor calls. Lucky for us they didn't kill us. We've all had unplanned event rock us back to reality.

Complacency is a killer, and her sister is lack of proficiency .... and they are children to lack of judgement and poor situational awareness. 

Learning - a change of behavior as a result of experience ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, daver328 said:

Complacency is a killer, and her sister is lack of proficiency .... and they are children to lack of judgement and poor situational awareness. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tom said:

According the the NTSB database:
In the first 16 years of production, where Cirrus produced over 6,000 airframes, the fleet lost 108 airframes to fatal accidents.
Between 1964 and 1971, 7 of the first 16 years of Mooney production, with a fleet of +/- 6,000 (likely under) Mooney lost 175 airframes to fatal accidents--not counting the first 8 years!.  Mooney pilots are superior?  Really?

A related statistic,
in 16 years Cirrus has lost 108 aiframes of a fleet of 6,000+ to fatal accidents
In 60 years Mooney has lost 659 airframes of a fleet of 10,300+ to fatal accidents
Cirrus doesn't seem to be on pace to catch up with Mooney

Tom-

Being kinda simple, I'm easily convinced by boldface type. Also I ain't no numbers whiz, but I reckon those numbers average out to 0.112% annual risk of fatal accident per Cirrus  vs.  0.107% annual risk per Mooney.  If you throw out the early Mooney years with them rotted wood tails fallin' off left and right, Mooneys might even look a good bit better by comparison.

How can it be Cirrus ain't doing better ? I reckon it's a modern marvel over my rickety old '68C- ought to be safer, even without that fancy chute. I'd buy one quick if I had the money. But if it ain't the plane, what about the pilots?   I'm sure many are really great guys and gals too- too sharp to be lulled into security by newfangled gizmos.  

So Tom, do you think maybe the difference is that there are few more Cirrus pilots acting like jackasses with their fancy new toys 'cause they're thinkin' that red handle will save 'em?

Don't get me wrong, not trying to 'denigrate' the majority of Cirrus pilots.  And thanks for the vocab lesson.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose all of us pilots still carry a small piece of our youthful immortality that once upon a time we feared not death.  Every day I have to drive a curvy 2 lane highway at least once each way and some times more. This road has no escape routs for much of its length and I see more and more cars crossing the center line as people are more interested in the stupid phones than they are driving.  Winter weather has its own added risk but the more I think about it the more I am inclined to ride my rice rocket than drive my car. if someone crosses I've no room to maneuver in the car but have plenty of lane to work with on the bike. But ask anyone which is safer and hands down they will say the car because it has all those wonderful high tech safety devices built in.  Way off the subject but there is more to safety than tech. As for me If I was that worried about a fatal crash I would not fly. would it be nice to have a chute I don't know because I don't even think in those terms. when I fly I go as high as is practical am always looking for a place to land that I can fly my disabled airplane to and I intend to fly it (controlled) right into the landing. Perhaps riding and racing  has ingrained that mind set into me but that's how I think. Personally I think a lot of tech has interfered with natural selection and as a species we have become more complacent because we count on every one else to keep us safe.  If I had the money I would buy a new Mooney over a Cirrus any day.  And by the way who is Tom, does he fly does he own an airplane. he provides no info as to his experience with aviation. He sure likes to stir up s&*t though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now