Cirrus Down Jan 8 2016

[peevee]

3 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I think he meant that you better bring some condoms if you are flying a Cirrus? I dunno - I got lost.

no wonder they're so expensive

[Shadrach]

8 hours ago, Tom said:

 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).

I do, but as Dev so eloquently stated earlier, safety innovations often inspire folks to take risks they would otherwise avoid. I am not suggesting that we don't have all manner of jackassery in GA across all makes and models, only that it's hard to get excited when some fool on a cross country flight passes up multiple opportunities to refuel and parachutes tanks dry into someone's back yard.   If a brand B, C, P etc ran out of grass and landed in a field, I'd feel the same way. My feelings could be summed up in one phrase - "I'm glad you survived, dip shit"...  

However, pulling a chute does not even allow for the modest redemption of executing a decent dead stick landing.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Shadrach

[Tom]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

If a brand B, C, P etc ran out of grass and landed in a field, I'd feel the same way. My feelings could be summed up in one phrase - "I'm glad you survived, dip shit"...  

However, pulling a chute does not even allow for the modest redemption of executing a decent dead stick landing.

Is the rare event of someone pulling a chute and floating atop someone’s house or into their backyard really worse than a forced landing onto a road (with respect to safety of those on the ground)?  I’m talking about injury and lives lost, not property damage.  Of course it’s better than spinning into the house…

I used to own a Varieze that, like the Mooney, has above-average glide characteristics.  Still, I would never attempt an off-airport landing in the Varieze IF I had a chute on board and I probably wouldn't either in a chute-equipped Mooney without some fairly pristine terrain on which to land.  The plane would be totaled anyway.  You better get it right when performing an off-airport landing in a high-performance plane.   Most of us are introduced to off-airport landings in trainers that can nearly be flown into the side of a building at stall speed with some survivability hope.  Some of us seem to carry that mindset into faster aircraft. 

The marginally higher stall/controllable speed of higher performance aircraft is associated with a fairly steep reduction in survivability, particularly if flying over “hit and stick” (where I fly) instead of “hit and skip” terrain.  A “decent” off-airport landing might not be good enough and makes little sense to risk attempting.  If your were truly sincere about not taking unnecessary additional risks, why in an emergency (no matter how idiotically gotten into) would you suggest an off-airport landing in a high-performance plane on when you had another option available that most certainly would get you down alive?  I suspect, ironically, that you’d chose the off-airport landing to protect yourself from people like yourself (i.e. to avoid dealing  with holier-than-thou Monday-morning quarterbacks who would fault you for not only being foolish but incapable of pulling of a nice off-airport landing).

Air Force safety people claim that stigma, ego involvement, and peer-pressure are leading causes of pilots delaying ejection decisions.  Loss of situation awareness of course is always the #1 killer.  In an engine-out, situational awareness includes fully appreciating wind direction and speed along with all ground-related factors.  Here I'm not shy about challenging those who provide peer-pressure in supporting a stigma against chute use.  If you need to pick on others to soothe your ego, go find some other endeavor in which to do it.

An no, I’m not associated with BRS.  I phoned them twice, that’s it.  As best as I can tell BRS is in war profiteering mode. No, I'm not a Cirrus fan.

NTSB/SR-85/01 while dated is a good quick read:

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SR8501.pdf

 

 

[carusoam]

Tom,

briefly, can you remind me, what is your point?

I thought you were selling parachutes.

I must have forgotten along the length of this thread.

-a-

[Tom]

35 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Tom,

briefly, can you remind me, what is your point?

I thought you were selling parachutes.

I must have forgotten along the length of this thread.

-a-

I'm strongly a chute proponent, but I'm not selling chutes. The shortest distance between two points isn't always through a tunnel.

The point(s) is/are to refute the ideas:
-that simply training and flying more will bring about a substantially similar fatality risk reduction to have an aircraft that is chute-equipped
-that it is acceptable to lambaste pilots for deploying a chute in a situation that they feel that they've lost control and/or situational awareness such that they feel that they are going to suffer a worse outcome than deploying the chute

The point is also to demonstrate:
-that holier-than-thou types end up dead too and they need to see the light
-that the Mooney accident numbers shown demonstrate that a high percentage of Mooney aircraft have been lost, likely but impossible to prove, in circumstances that the Cirrus community would consider a legitimate "save" but that some folks here (and elsewhere) don't consider a legitimate "save."  As best I can tell, the skeptics don't have an full appreciation that all saves are real saves and by denigrating chute-pullers they accomplish nothing other than to support an idiotic pilot sub-culture concept that one should push a bad situation into something worse or else they're not a good enough pilot. 

 

 

 

 

[kpaul]

To chute or not to chute, that appears to be the question.  Having flown ejection seat aircraft, there is some thought that goes into trying to point the nose away from population, however that is not always possible.  At some point (while still within the ejection envelope) the decision to eject must be made.  Where the plane goes post ejection is now in the hands of god, physics, or both depending on which you entrust. 

Oh, by the way the military has an almost identical mishap rate to that of the civilian flying community, almost all of which are pilot caused.  I can guarantee you that military pilots train more that civilian pilots yet still get themselves into the same problems many times with the same catastrophic results.  The same goes for commercial pilots that fly 1000's of hours per year yet still do dumb things (stall on final...Buffalo, NY). 

[MyNameIsNobody]

6 hours ago, Tom said:

I'm strongly a chute proponent, but I'm not selling chutes. The shortest distance between two points isn't always through a tunnel.

The point(s) is/are to refute the ideas:
-that simply training and flying more will bring about a substantially similar fatality risk reduction to have an aircraft that is chute-equipped
-that it is acceptable to lambaste pilots for deploying a chute in a situation that they feel that they've lost control and/or situational awareness such that they feel that they are going to suffer a worse outcome than deploying the chute

The point is also to demonstrate:
-that holier-than-thou types end up dead too and they need to see the light
-that the Mooney accident numbers shown demonstrate that a high percentage of Mooney aircraft have been lost, likely but impossible to prove, in circumstances that the Cirrus community would consider a legitimate "save" but that some folks here (and elsewhere) don't consider a legitimate "save."  As best I can tell, the skeptics don't have an full appreciation that all saves are real saves and by denigrating chute-pullers they accomplish nothing other than to support an idiotic pilot sub-culture concept that one should push a bad situation into something worse or else they're not a good enough pilot. 

 

 

 

 

FAIL.  Your feeble attempt to refute the belief of some "chute pullers" that made multiple accident chain decisions up to the point of the pull, that may have also been pre-mature, Do NOT deserve judgement and second-guessing is wrong.

Everything else is just a lot of words used to poor effect.

I might be that guy someday, but knowing I will be judged for my decisions to do or not do is food for the soul...

[Shadrach]

7 hours ago, Tom said:

Is the rare event of someone pulling a chute and floating atop someone’s house or into their backyard really worse than a forced landing onto a road (with respect to safety of those on the ground)?  I’m talking about injury and lives lost, not property damage.  Of course it’s better than spinning into the house…

I used to own a Varieze that, like the Mooney, has above-average glide characteristics.  Still, I would never attempt an off- over “hit and stick” (where I fly) instead of “hit and skip” terrain.  A “decent” off-airport landing might not be good enough and makes little sense to risk attempting.  If your were truly sincere about not taking unnecessary additional risks, why in an emergency (no matter how idiotically gotten into) would you suggest an off-airport landing in a high-on awareness of course is always the #1 killer.  In an engine-out, situational awareness includes fully appreciating wind direction and speed along with all ground-related factors.  Here I'm not shy about challenging those who provide peer-pressure in supporting a stigma against chute use.  

We don't know about the risks to folks on the ground. Only a small number of the total aircraft flying are equipped with chutes and only a small portion of those have pulled. Do you some how think that a 1.5 ton aircraft descending out of control at nearly 20mph straight down poses no risks to those on the ground? There are several reasons that Cirrus did not build a retract, one of which is that it's likely that the injury prognosis for passengers under the canopy is not so great without the gear to act as a crush zone. In most cases a chute merely trades controlled horizontal velocity for uncontrolled vertical velocity at a lower rate. The latter can be managed into a gradual deceleration away from the public, the former is an uncontrolled descent to what almost always ends with a sudden stop.  If you think that the best decision is always to opt for uncontrolled verticals descent, then I think that you are small minded and for the sake of folks on the ground, I am thankful that the air is not full of guy like you in airplanes that are one handle pull away from an uncortrolled vertical descent.

Your benighted statistical analysis has not swayed me. I do believe that the chute emboldens pilots to do things they shouldn't ought to do. I believe that is reflected in the fact that the cirrus family of aircraft had an abysmal fatal accident rate per 100,000 hrs flown in its first 10 years in existence.

Can someone please post the accident stats by manufacture per 100,000 hrs flown? 

[Tom]

8 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Can someone please post the accident stats by manufacture per 100,000 hrs flown? 

I don't know whom outside of an insurance company might have the numbers per 100,000 hours.  The below cherry-picked graph show that your argument stopped being correct somewhere around 10 years ago:

[aviatoreb]

Let's not forget that cars also pose a significant risk to people (pedestrians) and houses.  I actually saw a crash (post crash) lodged into a house kind of like this once.  I don't think it is reasonable to hope that small airplanes will be less risk to houses than are cars.

I wish one of us could find the RECENT per 100,000hrs of exposure risk of Mooney, Cirrus, and several other airplane brands for some kind of comparison.

As mentioned, the insurance industry does this for a living, so I am sure they have a sophisticated model assessment of various conditional factors including airplane type, but also pilot training and experience profile.  We all know what they ask us each year upon renewal.  It is a shame they only tell us a price, and do not offer to us a risk score and suggestions on what specifically they would like us to do to improve our risk score. This would not only be interesting to us, but also for their sake perhaps a cost benefit for them to explain to us exactly what we are up against individually.

Note, already suggested also, the cost of insurance is not just about safety, but rather something that is coupled to safety, which is risk of dollar amount pay out.  Built into the insurance cost is not the thing we each individually care most about, which is the probability of our not becoming bodily harmed or even worse, killed.  What is built into the cost is the chance of the insurance company paying out a million dollars.  Knock on wood, but a single dead pilot and a complete airframe loss is less expensive than a complete airframe loss and four severely injured passengers and people on the ground injured.

Wouldnt it be brilliant if the insurance industry would give us what I believe they are developing anyway which is a report card on each of us, and what changes would make to change those scores.  I.e., probability of death per 100,000 hours is xx, but it would change to yy if you installed an AOA, or zz if you trained for a commercial, but get worse to some other value if you only fly with a cfi on biannual, etc....  Maybe interactive software - where we could play what if - what if with my current training plus sufficient transition training, I switch to a Cirrus.  To a twin, etc.  Again I am saying in terms of risk to bodily injury/100,000 not in terms of risk of $ payout.  A detailed and personalized report card such as this could have a real impact on aviation safety I think.  I do think the only people in position to do it are the insurance companies.  They should offer it for free, if they think of it since I think just putting the information out there would improve their bottom line, but heck, I would even pay a fee for them to produce such a report about me personally.  Or if one company was doing that, as part of their service, I would switch to that one company even if they cost more.

I am for real on this - how can we suggest such a minor (relatively feasible to implement) change of practice to an industry?  George, are you here?  Is there something the AOPA can do to suggest the idea to the insurance industry?

[aviatoreb]

I contacted the BRS company this weekend to ask them if they had any plans to look at the M20 line for a parachute.  As I have said before - I would likely buy it.  Why dont I buy a cirrus - I dont like the way they fly.  I dont think I want to use a BRS, and I don't think I will ever need one, but I would install one if it were available.

BRS responded - they said no - M20 is not in their planning.  They are finishing up an STC for the C206.

Hey all you mooneyspace folk - if you want a BRS - please email them. Shake the tree,

 

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, Tom said:

 

 

 

Cool graphic - makes perfect sense but very cool to see someone actually did the study.

[aviatoreb]

There seems to be quite a decent per 100,000 hrs and across models analysis in this study, from aviation consumer.  Including Cirrus and Mooney and several others.  Darn - my pervious airplane I owned was a DA40....

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/42_1/industrynews/Cirrus-Aircraft-Safety-Analysys_6209-1.html

If you do not have the link COPA seems to have posted it - put "

Cirrus Examined: Just Average for Safety" in your google and it will find it.

See also, http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus_Safety_Record_Average_205914-1.html

Another factor is type of use, and the best I found there is from someone else who clipped from flightware:

Here are some numbers for types with a lot of planes on IFR or flight following:

Cessna 182 0.72
Cessna 210 1.46
Beech Baron 58 0.51
Mooney (all)0.55
Beech BE36 0.47
Beech BE35 0.71
Cirrus SR22 0.53


Read more: http://news.legalexaminer.com/cirrus-fatalities-have-critics-questioning-safety.aspx?googleid=262482#ixzz3xzPd2rBd

[Tom]

15 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

We don't know about the risks to folks on the ground. Only a small number of the total aircraft flying are equipped with chutes and only a small portion of those have pulled. Do you some how think that a 1.5 ton aircraft descending out of control at nearly 20mph straight down poses no risks to those on the ground?

Every plane that crashes resulting in a fatality has provided a risk to that situated on the earth.  Which of the following options would provide the lowest likely damage to whatever was on the ground from a 1.5 ton airplane impact?

Option A:  uncontrolled 20mph relatively vertical impact (chute)
Option B:  controlled just above stall speed with a near horizontal impact (forced landing)
Option C:  uncontrolled at stall speed near vertical impact (spin)
Option D:  uncontrolled at well above stall speed with some manner of near vertical impact (spiral)

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

Every plane that crashes resulting in a fatality has provided a risk to that situated on the earth.  Which of the following options would provide the lowest likely damage to whatever was on the ground from a 1.5 ton airplane impact?

Option A:  uncontrolled 20mph relatively vertical impact (chute)
Option B:  controlled just above stall speed with a near horizontal impact (forced landing)
Option C:  uncontrolled at stall speed near vertical impact (spin)
Option D:  uncontrolled at well above stall speed with some manner of near vertical impact (spiral)

I'm pissing in the wind here. Clearly C&D would result in nearly 100 fatal rate.  The rub is A and B.  You clearly seem believe option A is always superior, I can envision situations where it is not.   You also left out "controlled and above stall speed" which I think happens more often than we think.  

I would like to believe that faced with the option risking: 

A] killing myself

B] killing ground dwellers

C] killing myself and ground dwellers. 

I would choose A.  The time is coming when someone pulls because of poor judgement and kills someone on the ground. It won't happen often, but it will happen.  I'm not sure, I'd want to survive if I pancaked on to someone on the ground.

[Tom]

11 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I'm pissing in the wind here. Clearly C&D would result in nearly 100 fatal rate.  The rub is A and B.  You clearly seem believe option A is always superior, I can envision situations where it is not.   You also left out "controlled and above stall speed" which I think happens more often than we think.  

I would like to believe that faced with the option risking: 

A] killing myself

B] killing ground dwellers

C] killing myself and ground dwellers. 

I would choose A.  The time is coming when someone pulls because of poor judgement and kills someone on the ground. It won't happen often, but it will happen.  I'm not sure, I'd want to survive if I pancaked on to someone on the ground.

"Controlled and above stall speed" is option B, otherwise known as a forced landing.  I stated "just above stall speed" to suggest a controlled forced landing with as little energy in the aircraft as possible which assumes that the pilot bleeds all excessive speed just before contacting whatever it is that is on the ground.  Furthermore, I linked in option B examples of pilots killing people and damaging property on the ground.  Do you think that the pilot saw the child killed in the beach strike?  Why do you choose to ignore the history of all the controlled crashes into people and property on the ground where the airplane had more energy than descending under a chute?  Maybe if/when a chute STC is developed for the Mooney it'll come with a falling plane siren or something so you might feel more comfortable using the chute.

Otherwise the "impact speed and angle vs survivability" graphs were given to demonstrate that even in a controlled forced landing a fatality can result (see photo below, M20A lost in recent years to an engine out over rolling terrain).

Given another few thousand years of flying with aircraft parachutes your doomsday scenario of a plane under a chute falling on a school bus full of kids will probably happen. In the meantime, such concerns are not founded upon the record of Cirrus deployments while they ignore the record of the consequences to people/property on the ground during controlled crashes.

 

[DXB]

17 hours ago, Tom said:

I'm strongly a chute proponent, but I'm not selling chutes. The shortest distance between two points isn't always through a tunnel.

The point(s) is/are to refute the ideas:
-that simply training and flying more will bring about a substantially similar fatality risk reduction to have an aircraft that is chute-equipped
-that it is acceptable to lambaste pilots for deploying a chute in a situation that they feel that they've lost control and/or situational awareness such that they feel that they are going to suffer a worse outcome than deploying the chute

The point is also to demonstrate:
-that holier-than-thou types end up dead too and they need to see the light

Someone who exhausts fuel from simple carelessness or engages any comparable grossly negligent or reckless behavior richly deserves the derision of the entire aviation community, as well as sanctions against their privileges.  This must remain true even though any one of us as mere human beings might do something colossally stupid on any given day.  Though many accidents are much more subtle and complex than this, the NTSB database is full of this abhorrent category of accident every year.  If pulling the chute saves the life of such an individual, or anyone else, I'm 100% for it.  But the behavior reflects terribly on all of us and threatens this wonderful,  rare, and endangered privilege that we all enjoy. To suggest that we need greater tolerance and so-called humility in the face of such behavior erodes the very ethic of individual responsibility that makes us worthy of the privilege.

[Tom]

10 hours ago, DXB said:

Someone who exhausts fuel from simple carelessness or engages any comparable grossly negligent or reckless behavior richly deserves the derision of the entire aviation community, as well as sanctions against their privileges.  This must remain true even though any one of us as mere human beings might do something colossally stupid on any given day.  Though many accidents are much more subtle and complex than this, the NTSB database is full of this abhorrent category of accident every year.  If pulling the chute saves the life of such an individual, or anyone else, I'm 100% for it.  But the behavior reflects terribly on all of us and threatens this wonderful,  rare, and endangered privilege that we all enjoy. To suggest that we need greater tolerance and so-called humility in the face of such behavior erodes the very ethic of individual responsibility that makes us worthy of the privilege.

It's intellectually disingenuous to:
-twist what has been said in this thread to suggest anyone has condoned imprudent pilot behavior
-suggest that anyone suggested against critically examining all mistakes for lessons to be learned
-sit quietly when living people report stupid stuff yet claim to be the guardians of all that is right in aviation for the good of those on land and in the air

So it seems that we should continue to expect from the Squadron of Justice, manned by Maj. Bully and his wingmen Capt. Obvious and Lt. Whathesaid:
-derision every time a pilot has a bad day and survives under a chute
-continued silence when living pilots report derisable/sanctionable mistakes
-condolences only when the pilot having a bad day dies from a derisable mistake

You and others exercised great tolerance and humility in passing up on the opportunity to flog and recommend sanctions a VFR pilot recently for taking his family IMC for a couple minutes.  That pilot subsequently unfortunately passed away and the family injured in a separate flying event.  Where was the Squadron of Justice when they were needed? 

Now, I 100% agree with your sentiment of self-regulation, but I call absolute bullshit on your discretion.  Continue to bully away and pat each other on the back.  This has nothing to do with promoting a culture of safety.

[Guest]

Time to put the swords and pistols away boys, it's a beautiful day for flying.

Clarence

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

Time to put the swords and pistols away boys, it's a beautiful day for flying.

Clarence

Yeah, it's gorgeous here in MD!

 

 

Edited January 23, 2016 by Shadrach

[MyNameIsNobody]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Time to put the swords and pistols away boys, it's a beautiful day for flying.

Clarence

And give Tom (The master of the Universe and King Judger and Accuser in charge the final word?). NOPE

There are countless threads that discuss safe operation of a Mooney and decision-making on MooneySpace.  The fact that you are such an arrogant @$$j (Takes one to know one)...and you are one Judging away on the defense of the apparently defenseless chute pullers.

I don't know how many times I and others on this thread need to say they like the chutes would be happy to have one in a new Mooney before you accept that we are NOT chute haters...Wait a second NEVER is the answer.

You need to market a T-Shirt that says "I love All Chute-Pullers". White lettering on Black.  I am going to continue to judge JUST as I would expect others to judge me if I have an off-airport landing for running tanks dry.

The guy that allegedly flew without a Private ticket or IFR Cert., was mixed in a thread and then appeared to have been deleted.  I came in late to read others questioning (in their input) whether the guy was a licensed pilot flying his family in poor conditions.

I would have lambasted the guy if his threads were not deleted.  At some point you shake your head on these people.

Summation:  You need to go to specific threads and voice your outrage.  I reject your premise...For as many times as you feel it necessary to try and have the final word:

1. That we/I am a chute-hater

2. That I/we have less outrage for stupid pilot tricks that result in a chute-pull than I/we do if it is a non-chute pull

3. That you dis-like our words of condolence to the lost pilot/family/friends.  That is what people that care do Tom.  I judge you lacking in the caring about others department...BUT give you a solid Gold Star for whining about 1&2 above.

4. When I am the ONLY one that feels a certain way with conviction...I tend to pull back, re-evaluate, question.  You just keep doubling down as the sole-purveyor of judgement.

[Shadrach]

18 minutes ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

4. When I am the ONLY one that feels a certain way with conviction...I tend to pull back, re-evaluate, question.  You just keep doubling down as the sole-purveyor of judgement.

While that may be true, it rarely happens without some feathers flying! 

I was looking at an old thread from 2011 (IIRC) where I had some interesting exchanges with your alter ego. I'm glad your still here saying what you think!

Tom is most tenacious, he should change his screen nam to "Last Word"...because I'm pretty sure he always gets it!

Edited January 23, 2016 by Shadrach

[kmyfm20s]

Tom, time to pull the chute on this thread!

[Marauder]

Tom, time to pull the chute on this thread!

Or the ladies will show up.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marauder]

What the heck. Chutes can fail.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk