Cabanaboy

Cirrus Down Jan 8 2016

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, DXB said:

I reckon those numbers average out to 0.112% annual risk of fatal accident per Cirrus  vs.  0.107% annual risk per Mooney. 

-I don't claim the numbers to be perfect, rather I claim that the numbers are what are found on the NTSB archive database online.
-I don't understand how you figured the .107% and .112% numbers.
-By the end of 1964-1971 (7 year) period, I reckon Mooney had around 6,000 aircraft in the fleet-I stand to be corrected and will try  to clarify this in the coming days (I have the data somewhere).
-In 1964, I reckon Mooney had as much as 2,000 aircraft in the fleet (will attempt to clarify this as well).
-In 1999, Cirrus started with 1 airplane in the fleet but 16 years of Cirrus accidents are included in the calculation
-The numbers clearly are hard to compare apples to apples.
-My assessment, subject to clarification with more precise numbers and not dogmatic conjecture, is that the fleet hours are comparable to determine if there was a significant difference in the fatal accident rate.
-108 fatal accidents in 16 years = 6.75 fatal accidents/year (Cirrus)
-175 fatal accidents in 7 years = 25 fatal accidents/year (Mooney)
-Including the 1955 through 1963 Mooney numbers would only increase the fatal statistic making the Mooney numbers worse.
-108 in 16 years vs 175 in 7 years is significantly different, obviously.  Again, debatable is the accident per 100,000 hour statistic.  I could be wrong, but I can't believe that the fleet hour difference is great enough to ultimately favor Mooney at all.
-The better comparison would be to include all M-20 from 1955 on, even if removing all the wood-based statistics.
-Again, obviously, it's very difficult to compare apples to apples (i.e. to argue that the production numbers vs fleet hours in the first 16 years from Mooney is equal to the fleet increase and flight hours of the first 16 years from Cirrus.  
-All of the available numbers makes it very difficult for me to assess that Mooney has a lower fatal accident rate before even introducing the missing 1955-1963 Mooney data.

22 minutes ago, DXB said:

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

I'm sorry, did you say big-engined forked-tail doctor killer?  Today it's Cirrus.  In yesteryear, it was the Bonanza.  Same problem (over-confidence), only in today's world the jackass has a greater chance of surviving. That's a good thing. This is why I say that a save is a f'n save.  But the same type of envy that targeted Bonanza owners in the past now seems targeted at Cirrus owners.  Envy is fine, but no need to discount the value and utility of the technology just because one can't comfortably afford it  (for the life of me I see no other reason to be bagging on the chute).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

All I know is that if a Mooney owner bought a Cirrus, there would be no chutes pulled.

Us Cheap Bast$&ds wouldn't want to pay for the repacking of the chute.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Mooney's have been around PRIOR to life saving situational and engine monitoring avionics advances.

No.  Mooney pilots/drivers of airframes making better decisions as a whole?  Perhaps.  OR the Cirrus composite airframe is a lot more expensive to repair...or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen or heard of a Cirrus being landed gear up, it's a stupid Mooney pilot trick which cost us all addition insurance premiums.

Clarence

 

Edited by M20Doc
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

... 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.

Tom is a fellow who works for the BRS chute company.  We had a similar discussion over on the Facebook mooney driver's forum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The V-Tail Bonanza LIKE the Wood-Tail Mooney's were structurally deficient.  When strengthened and replaced with a metal tail both were/are superior airframes.  The Cirrus likely IS safer than both the Mooney and the Beechcraft.  Fixed Gear, superior auto-pilots from the beginning, Lots of audible nanny's, Superior avionics AND the BRS.  Do I want a Cirrus?  Nope.

Would I love to have a new Mooney with a BRS?  Hell yes.  Would I retrofit my 1966 with a BRS if available?  NOPE.

Like when many read my posts they find them/me abrasive.  Reading Tom, for me, is like after I had my lasik surgery completed.  Painful, like there was sand in my eye.  He is probably to much LIKE me.  I try to never "pick a fight"...but if I disagree I will debate.  I reject his whole hypothesis that: Mooney owners are chute-haters and or have chute envy OR that we reject Cirrus as inferior or having inferior pilots.

That said the video MADE by a fellow piloting a Cirrus was funny and certainly harmless tongue in cheek fun.  Or not to some.

Edited by MyNameIsNobody

Share this post


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

-I don't claim the numbers to be perfect, rather I claim that the numbers are what are found on the NTSB archive database online.
-I don't understand how you figured the .107% and .112% numbers.
-By the end of 1964-1971 (7 year) period, I reckon Mooney had around 6,000 aircraft in the fleet-I stand to be corrected and will try  to clarify this in the coming days (I have the data somewhere).
-In 1964, I reckon Mooney had as much as 2,000 aircraft in the fleet (will attempt to clarify this as well).
-In 1999, Cirrus started with 1 airplane in the fleet but 16 years of Cirrus accidents are included in the calculation
-The numbers clearly are hard to compare apples to apples.
-My assessment, subject to clarification with more precise numbers and not dogmatic conjecture, is that the fleet hours are comparable to determine if there was a significant difference in the fatal accident rate.
-108 fatal accidents in 16 years = 6.75 fatal accidents/year (Cirrus)
-175 fatal accidents in 7 years = 25 fatal accidents/year (Mooney)
-Including the 1955 through 1963 Mooney numbers would only increase the fatal statistic making the Mooney numbers worse.
-108 in 16 years vs 175 in 7 years is significantly different, obviously.  Again, debatable is the accident per 100,000 hour statistic.  I could be wrong, but I can't believe that the fleet hour difference is great enough to ultimately favor Mooney at all.
-The better comparison would be to include all M-20 from 1955 on, even if removing all the wood-based statistics.
-Again, obviously, it's very difficult to compare apples to apples (i.e. to argue that the production numbers vs fleet hours in the first 16 years from Mooney is equal to the fleet increase and flight hours of the first 16 years from Cirrus.  
-All of the available numbers makes it very difficult for me to assess that Mooney has a lower fatal accident rate before even introducing the missing 1955-1963 Mooney data.

I'm sorry, did you say big-engined forked-tail doctor killer?  Today it's Cirrus.  In yesteryear, it was the Bonanza.  Same problem (over-confidence), only in today's world the jackass has a greater chance of surviving. That's a good thing. This is why I say that a save is a f'n save.  But the same type of envy that targeted Bonanza owners in the past now seems targeted at Cirrus owners.  Envy is fine, but no need to discount the value and utility of the technology just because one can't comfortably afford it  (for the life of me I see no other reason to be bagging on the chute).

 

 

Although I appreciate the statistics, you summed it up best when you said "the numbers are hard to compare apples to apples".

For those of us who have been flying for some time and for the pros in the group, I have seen a steady increase in safety related emphasis in the cockpit. Whether it was a new approach to CRM (which still failed in the recent crash at KSFO) or the new FAA Private Pilot PTS shifting the emphasis from carnal aviation knowledge to a decision making focus on the practical, the emphasis has shifted. And I think this changes how the statistics work when you are trying to compared statistics based on model entry points. What I did 30 years ago flying is not what I do today.

Probably more relevant if you looked at the overlapping population of modern area Mooneys and compared them to the Cirrus statistics. As Dave pointed out, we have all done stupid things in the past and lived to talk about it.

As for my personal situation. When I bought my Mooney I researched and categorized every F model accident that was in the NTSB files. And keep in mind, the NTSB only records a fraction of what actually occurs out there. I know of 4 engine related incidents reported on this site where the pilot was able to successfully bring the plane down safely. No record will exist for those events.

What I found for my type Mooney was that 86% of all F model Mooney accidents were related to or pilot induced (bad decision making, tangling with weather, poor technique or other pilot related screw-ups), 12% were mechanical and the remaining 2% were multiple contributing factors.

My response; maintain the 3Cs (currency, competency and confidence), get better at reading weather (everyone knows how to read skew-T, right?) do IPCs every 6 months whether I need them or not for currency, stack the odds in my favor (periodic engine inspections, oil analysis, sending in data files to SavvyAviator for another set of eyes), adding hardware that helps the workload (since I never figured out how to grow a third arm, a fully capable autopilot) and redundancy (doubling up of components).

It doesn't matter what you fly, if you are not equipped to deal with it, bad things happen -- and even if you are equipped to deal with it, bad things happen.

And just to put things into context, I saw the stats someone posted about causes of death. I have fallen down a full flight of stairs twice in my life (I think they hit harder than the linebackers who nailed me crossing the middle) and once in the bathtub (when I was in my 30s -- good thing I was more rubbery back then).

What we do is risky, so are a lot of other things in life (like cycling on public roads). I live the philosophy "stack the odds in your favor and don't do something stupid".

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

I've never seen or heard of a Cirrus being landed gear up, it's a stupid retract pilot trick which cost us all addition insurance premiums.

Clarence

FIFY.  Gear up landings are not unique to Mooneys. This thread is really degenerating.  I will be the first to say that I am glad that chutes help save pilots no matter the circumstances. Every time a retract accidentally lands gear up the pilot is faced with the cost of engine rebuild and the embarrassment of his fellow airman learning that he bent his airplane.  Every time a Cirrus pulls a chute, it makes the news; it's another opportunity for State and Fed lawmakers to have reason to "take action"... for non-aviation folks to complain about "little airplanes"... for land developers who want airport land to exploit the situation.  I still think chutes are a great idea.  I just wish chute pulling pilots did a better job of confining their chute pulling needs to things that didn't display overtly poor judgement...

Edited by Shadrach

Share this post


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

The V-Tail Bonanza LIKE the Wood-Tail Mooney's were structurally deficient.  When strengthened and replaced with a metal tail both were/are superior airframes.  The Cirrus likely IS safer than both the Bonanza and the Beechcraft.  Fixed Gear, superior auto-pilots from the beginning, Lots of audible nanny's, Superior avionics AND the BRS.  Do I want a Cirrus?  Nope.

Would I love to have a new Mooney with a BRS?  Hell yes.  Would I retrofit my 1966 with a BRS if available?  NOPE.

Like when many read my posts they find them/me abrasive.  Reading Tom, for me, is like after I had my lasik surgery completed.  Painful, like there was sand in my eye.  He is probably to much LIKE me.  I try to never "pick a fight"...but if I disagree I will debate.  I reject his whole hypothesis that: Mooney owners are chute-haters and or have chute envy OR that we reject Cirrus as inferior or having inferior pilots.

That said the video MADE by a fellow piloting a Cirrus was funny and certainly harmless tongue in cheek fun.  Or not to some.

Cirrus makes a great airplane, but I'm not in love with the fuel tank design...or lack there of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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

+1

Proficiency is a very perishable skill. I notice this if I sit out for more than a week even. One thing I haven't been able to really teach, but most assuredly can evaluate, is judgment. This has to be instilled from the outset in a safety culture with a pilot.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

FIFY.  Gear up landings are not unique to Mooneys. This thread is really degenerating.  I will be the first to say that I am glad that chutes help save pilots no matter the circumstances. Every time a retract accidentally lands gear up the pilot is faced with the cost of engine rebuild and the embarrassment of his fellow airman learning that he bent his airplane.  Every time a Cirrus pulls a chute, it makes the news; it's another opportunity for State and Fed lawmakers to have reason to "take action"... for non-aviation folks to complain about "little airplanes"... for land developers who want airport land to exploit the situation.  I still think chutes are a great idea.  I just wish chute pulling pilots did a better job of confining their chute pulling needs to things that didn't display overtly poor judgement...

You're quite right, gear up landing are not unique to Mooney pilots.  I used the example because the Mooney/Cirrus comparison is so strong in this thread.

Clarence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, M20Doc said:

You're quite right, gear up landing are not unique to Mooney pilots.  I used the example because the Mooney/Cirrus comparison is so strong in this thread.

Clarence

Sure, but the reality is that it has always been Cirrus compared to everything else in its class. I think it's great that straight leg birds are getting such great speed and efficiency. However, I like flying a retract...even a bird has sense enough to pull its legs up after takeoff.:P 

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

-I don't claim the numbers to be perfect, rather I claim that the numbers are what are found on the NTSB archive database online.
-I don't understand how you figured the .107% and .112% numbers.

The rates of fatal accident/aircraft/year are directly calculated from the raw stats as you state them to suggest a questionable safety record for Mooney relative to Cirrus.  As many here note, the calculation is highly flawed since it must falsely assume the number planes flying are  stable from year to year. But it's the only normalized comparison possible from your data, which yields an uninterpretable result.  

5 hours ago, Tom said:

I'm sorry, did you say big-engined forked-tail doctor killer?  Today it's Cirrus.  In yesteryear, it was the Bonanza.  Same problem (over-confidence), only in today's world the jackass has a greater chance of surviving. 

There is indeed similarity here in that both are appealing luxury items that have sometimes been purchased by pilots with more money than experience or sense.  But there is a key difference:  the Cirrus bears a very novel and genuinely valuable safety innovation.  But the sense of security it provides leads some to undertake risky behavior that they would not otherwise - perhaps including the individual in the accident that started this thread.  This is nothing new- it happens with most major safety innovations in every field of human endeavor- i.e. hubris partially negates its potential safety dividend and creates a new type of mishap.  In this regard, it is no different from GPS, moving maps, datalink weather, or autopilot.  Of course it would be wrong to claim that any of these things are not worthwhile for this reason.

5 hours ago, Tom said:

That's a good thing. This is why I say that a save is a f'n save.  

It is indeed a good thing - I don't want that jackass or anyone else to die for his foolishness. The point is simply that calling some of these events "saves" overstates the value of the chute by ignoring that they occurred  because of grossly negligent behavior inspired by the safety net provided by the device itself.  Therefore calling an accident after simple fuel exhaustion here a "save" is a bit suspect.  At the other end of the spectrum, a pull after engine failure outside gliding distance of the runway in low IMC is much easier to view as a legit save.  Despite your asserting "a save is a f'n save" over and over again, its not so hard to see why they are not all the same.

6 hours ago, Tom said:

But the same type of envy that targeted Bonanza owners in the past now seems targeted at Cirrus owners.  Envy is fine, but no need to discount the value and utility of the technology just because one can't comfortably afford it  (for the life of me I see no other reason to be bagging on the chute).

 I can't recall anyone here outright discounting the value and utility of the technology- quite to the contrary I've affirmed it over and over again.  The only point is that representing every single chute pull with a successful outcome as a measure of its value added is a misleading overstatement.  Saying that this view arises from hatred or envy appears simply to be an ad hominem attack in absence of any reasonable argument against this point.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the. Umber of planes flying the stats from the 60s cannot be compared directly to modern stats. Even Mooneynaccident rates from the 60s are much higher than in the 2000s. Just look at the Nall Reports and the downward trend in not only fatal accidents but all aviation accidents.

if you want to make a valid comparison, look at the rates of Cirrus and Mooney accidents in the last ten or fifteen years, when more pilots are Instrument rated, most planes have GPS with terrain warnings, scud running is almost non-existent anymore, few people get badly lost, autopilots are common, etc.

otherwise, you're just farting in the wind, and ain't nobody gonna pay you any mind, no matter how many posts you make or how long this here thread carries on.

P.S.--Maybe you already did this, I tuned out a page or two ago, but the last couple of posts make it seem like you're still comparing across the decades, ignoring the huge safety pushes by AOPA, EAA, owners groups, FAA and NTSB. I posit that these have contributed more to "recent Cirrus safety vs. 1960s Mooney safety" than anything inherent in the Cirrus design. Prove me wrong with modern statistics, and provide your sources, because the hot air you expel talking won't warm my house over the interweb.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

.  Love the Cirrus and it's owners, 

Not me.  

I love the Cirrus and the technological advances it has brought to aviation, including the parachute.

But I cannot remember a single Cirrus owner that I truly want to be friends with.  Not sure why. 

Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dynamic sure has changed though. And cirrus has done a fantastic job creating real competition for Cessna, while bringing new pilots into the industry.

Share this post


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

if you want to make a valid comparison, look at the rates of Cirrus and Mooney accidents in the last ten or fifteen years, when more pilots are Instrument rated, most planes have GPS with terrain warnings, scud running is almost non-existent anymore, few people get badly lost, autopilots are common, etc.

That is clearly it.  Most importantly, pilots are different than they were in the 1950s and 1960s.  Primarily there are now many instrument rated pilots and there is a greater safety culture.  I don't mean Mooney I mean across GA.  Plus you don't have IFR pilots frequently blundering into tstorms as often because we have nexrad, etc.  And even Mooneys built in the 1960s have some modern equipment on board and even more important, modern pilots on board.

Here is an article that says that accident rates across GA have decline by 93% since 1950.  So comparing a 1950s mooney rate vs a 2010s mooney accident rate should compare similarly but I do not have that data.

chart1.jpg

http://fsxchicago.com/?p=521

What does exist is the per 100,000 hr accident rate in mooney and in Cirrus in the last 10 years.  So 1950-60s data vs 2000s up data is flawed to the point of not useful.

That said, I would add a BRS to my mooney if it were available - I have said so before.  In fact, I wrote to BRS about a month ago and they wrote back this week and said no BRS STC project is in the pipeline for the Mooney.  That they are working on a C206 - wohoo for them - so what for me.  I like the Mooney more as an airplane to fly.  I like the Cirrus more as an airplane to pull the chute.  So I bought a Mooney.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously disappointed with you EriC. I was expecting from our resident mathematician, née I say statistician, to provide a thorough 3 sigma outlier analysis.

Good points and observations though on the approach others are taking.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marauder said:

Seriously disappointed with you EriC. I was expecting from our resident mathematician, née I say statistician, to provide a thorough 3 sigma outlier analysis.

Good points though on the support of the approach others are taking. emoji106.png

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't mind if you are disappointed in me if only you spell my name correctly.  :-)  

But I am not a statistician - I am a mathematician - but ok I'll admit I do more statistics than your average bear.

I can't do statistics without raw data.  That was the jist of my reply that good raw data is needed and I suspect that head-head Cirrus in the last 10 years and Mooney in the last 10 years on a per 100,000 hr basis exists but I am not excited enough by the topic to go dig for professional quality data myself on a pro bono basis and do a for real analysis.  So I make like the rest of us here and throw popcorn from my couch.

That book posting though was a for real comment - in the hands of a professional statistician, it is easy to manipulate data so as to seemingly conclude whatever you want.  In fact, often you see the following - the boss makes a decision.  Then the boss gets his tech team to find the data to support his conclusion.  Then the tech team does just that.  I once had a summer internship job at US West the phone company where they were doing various market analysis on exactly this basis.  The boss essentially would pressure us to support his pre made decision.  If we did/could by hook or by crook, he would put us in suits and present to his bosses.  If we could not, he would pretend like the analysis was never made.

Beware of statistics was the point of that book posting.  It is easy to be fooled either on purpose or by accident even to fool yourself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

25 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:
34 minutes ago, Marauder said:
1 minute ago, Marauder said: Seriously disappointed with you EriC. I was expecting from our resident mathematician, née I say statistician, to provide a thorough 3 sigma outlier analysis.

Good points though on the support of the approach others are taking.

I don't mind if you are disappointed in me if only you spell my name correctly.  :-)  

But I am not a statistician - I am a mathematician - but ok I'll admit I do more statistics than your average bear.

I can't do statistics without raw data.  That was the jist of my reply that good raw data is needed and I suspect that head-head Cirrus in the last 10 years and Mooney in the last 10 years on a per 100,000 hr basis exists but I am not excited enough by the topic to go dig for professional quality data myself on a pro bono basis and do a for real analysis.  So I make like the rest of us here and throw popcorn from my couch.

That book posting though was a for real comment - in the hands of a professional statistician, it is easy to manipulate data so as to seemingly conclude whatever you want.  In fact, often you see the following - the boss makes a decision.  Then the boss gets his tech team to find the data to support his conclusion.  Then the tech team does just that.  I once had a summer internship job at US West the phone company where they were doing various market analysis on exactly this basis.  The boss essentially would pressure us to support his pre made decision.  If we did/could by hook or by crook, he would put us in suits and present to his bosses.  If we could not, he would pretend like the analysis was never made.

Beware of statistics was the point of that book posting.  It is easy to be fooled either on purpose or by accident even to fool yourself.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I know all about corporate statistics Erik (did the "C" to get your blood flowing since I know it is cold there). It gets interesting especially when people in marketing get their hands on it.

Although I am not a statistician professionally, I often needed to use their product in my career. Whether it was justifying someone's performance based on rank based distribution, funding R&D projects based on a marketing analysis for product pricing or just the good old fashion outlier analysis looking for problems, people tend to bend the numbers to address the problem they are trying to solve. It is my job to understand the BS and make the right decision.

Sort of like the line Dan Ackroyd (Captain Thurman) delivered to the question from Admiral Nimitz about the lack of naval intelligence delivered in the movie Pearl Harbor;

"Admiral Chester W. Nimitz: So, sir, you would have us mobilize the entire fleet, at the cost of millions of dollars, based on this 'spine-tingling' feeling of yours?

Captain Thurman: No, sir. I understand my job is to gather and interpret material. Making difficult decisions based on incomplete information from my limited decoding ability is your job, sir."

All popcorn cleaned up, I do wish there was an easy way to look at our class of aircraft (make and models) to determine what creates the danger zones. I have no intention of someone saying at my funeral "He died doing what he loved to do". Like my parents who both survived WWII as active participants, I learned that to survive you need to understand what to do or know to survive.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chutes are a lot like Condoms. They both can protect you from harm but they also have a tendency to increase risky behavior! You statisticians put some numbers to that comparison!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 I just wish chute pulling pilots did a better job of confining their chute pulling needs to things that didn't display overtly poor judgement...

 I just wish you/others would:
-recognize that human factors, including poor judgement, always has and always will occasionally result in fatal accidents, no matter the amount of training and preaching
-recognize that the same guy you are calling a "douche bag" and a "jackass" are the same type of guy who has in the past occasionally lost it and died for want of other options after a long series of mistakes.  Such deaths include things like losing it and crashing within gliding distance to a runway.  You probably see my request to defend chute-pullers as me trying to protect the helmet-wearing uncoordinated rich kid from name calling.  I see it as trying to respect the lessons of the dead that tells us to do more than the 3 Cs (admittedly being a little intolerant of the haughtiness of those critical of chute-pullers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

 

Beware of statistics was the point of that book posting.  It is easy to be fooled either on purpose or by accident even to fool yourself.

Ah, another man made global warming skeptic. 

  • 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