Mooney or Cirrus?

[RogueOne]

Just now, M20Doc said:

He can swim, but it’s hard to do if you’re trapped in the cockpit upside down under water.

Clarence

So it’s a certainty that he would of been trapped in the cockpit with a water landing?  O.K.  What was the type of aircraft?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, RogueOne said:

So it’s a certainty that he would of been trapped in the cockpit with a water landing?  O.K.  What was the type of aircraft?

It was in an Acrosport biplane.  It went inverted on touchdown in the wet field, water would have been the same result.

Clarence

[RogueOne]

2 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

It was in an Acrosport biplane.  It went inverted on touchdown in the wet field, water would have been the same result.

Clarence

He lived to fly another day I hope.  That must of been awful to see that.  I can not imagine seeing someone I cared about go down.

[RogueOne]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

you could total out 5-10 of these planes for every fatality insurance lawsuit. Are you somehow advocating property over human life? Because really Stuff is  stuff. Human life is something different right?  Do you want to establish some kind a ratio of airframes versus lives ?

I remember when I gupped while under instruction on a simulated engine out on displaced runway and you said: “Thanks a lot for costing us all a lot on our insurance”.

Just keep’n it real...

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, pwnel said:

I missed the part where the pilot saw the bottom of the plane and the dipstick before pulling the chute 

I mean I don’t know were you there? When oil pressure shows zero it sucks. But when the engine oil temp rises then the engine seizes it’s pretty much self evident that something is going on. 
 Let me ask you this do you have proof that the pilot here is lying or is mistaken? or are you just simply trying to shoot holes in the fact that the guy pulled the chute and liveD that day? I have a hard time believing that some pilot would see the gauge go to zero and then reach up and pull the parachute. I think most of us are smarter than that

[jetdriven]

2 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

I remember when I gupped while under instruction on a simulated engine out on displaced runway and you said: “Thanks a lot for costing us all a lot on our insurance”.

Just keep’n it real...

Post the link please.

 I feel very strongly about practicing Simulated emergency landings to a full  stop. It’s a Trap.  Get down to 100 feet or whatever then go around. Then you break the chain between gear up - clean- best  glide..  to land and stop.  Interrupt that. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by jetdriven

[RogueOne]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

you could total out 5-10 of these planes for every fatality insurance lawsuit. Are you somehow advocating property over human life? Because really Stuff is  stuff. Human life is something different right?  Do you want to establish some kind a ratio of airframes versus lives ?

I think (seriously) that a lot of humans would rather save their cat than a human being...

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

He lived to fly another day I hope.  That must of been awful to see that.  I can not imagine seeing someone I cared about go down.

I flew him home the same night after release from the hospital, he’s still flying.  It’s a flight I don’t want to repeat.

Clarence

[RogueOne]

Just now, jetdriven said:

Post the link please 

More fun to have memories, but if you so desire have at it.  That would of been Scottfromiowa days.  Before you gave out my address and tried to identify (failed) the company I work for.

[jetdriven]

10 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I flew him home the same night after release from the hospital, he’s still flying.  It’s a flight I don’t want to repeat.

Clarence

So Clarence did he fake the oil pressure gauge failing and just panicked and pulled the chute?  or did he have a legitimate engine problem with the aircraft?

This said “after a loss of for power”, he pulled.   https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/227681

 

i best the latest acclaim crash survivor is wishing he had a Parachute to pull.  The whole thing is sad, and preventable. 
 

Edited August 5, 2019 by jetdriven

[jetdriven]

Just now, RogueOne said:

More fun to have memories, but if you so desire have at it.  That would of been Scottfromiowa days.  Before you gave out my address and tried to identify (failed) the company I work for.

So you’re just full of shit then. Post the link that you claim or shut up

Edited August 5, 2019 by jetdriven

[RogueOne]

Just now, jetdriven said:

So you’re just full of shit thenSo you’re just full of shit then

Nope.  Full of delicious ribs.  Tomorrow though...it’s another day.

[jetdriven]

Thanks for the factual reply ignore list for you. Don’t gear up any more airplanes please.  

[BKlott]

49 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Anyone here actually witness and airplane going in?  

I have, I watched from my airplane as my best friend went in after and engine failure in northern Ontario, rocks lakes and trees as far as you could see.   He barely made it over a small lake into the only piece of pasture for miles, he came to a stop inverted and trapped in the cockpit.  Had he gone into the lake he would have drown.  

A BRS system would have been a real good idea that day.

Clarence

Sorry you had to witness that, Clarence. I’ve witnessed three accidents, two of which involved fatalities. I sincerely hope that we never have to witness another one ever again.

[Tom]

1 hour ago, pwnel said:

My contention is one of potential over-use for which insurance (and rescue services) foots the bill.  At least you get to shoot a viral YouTube video when it happens ...

There's potential, and there's reality.  A little more than 1 out of every 15 Mooney airframes that left Kerrville ended up in a fatal accident.  The 1 in 15 doesn't include all the accidents that resulted in ~only permanent disability, serious but recovered injuries, and otherwise written-off airframes.

So what does your contention say with respect to aggregate family and societal losses (emotional, financial, opportunity cost), the medical service expenditures, the lawsuits, et al, that have occurred associated with the 1 in 15 number?  Do you genuinely believe that pulling the chute "too much" actually costs more?  Really?

With respect, people need to look at real numbers before they waste energy warning of threats that are relatively inconsequential.    

I'd rather see a goofy viral video than hear about a funeral, or worse. 

[RogueOne]

24 minutes ago, Tom said:

There's potential, and there's reality.  A little more than 1 out of every 15 Mooney airframes that left Kerrville ended up in a fatal accident.  The 1 in 15 doesn't include all the accidents that resulted in ~only permanent disability, serious but recovered injuries, and otherwise written-off airframes.

So what does your contention say with respect to aggregate family and societal losses (emotional, financial, opportunity cost), the medical service expenditures, the lawsuits, et al, that have occurred associated with the 1 in 15 number?  Do you genuinely believe that pulling the chute "too much" actually costs more?  Really?

With respect, people need to look at real numbers before they waste energy warning of threats that are relatively inconsequential.    

I'd rather see a goofy viral video than hear about a funeral, or worse. 

NOPE.  That stat is cherrypicked and NOT ACCURATE.  Prove me wrong.  I am calling BS Tom.

[Tom]

Just now, RogueOne said:

NOPE.  That stat is cherrypicked and NOT ACCURATE.  Prove me wrong.  I am calling BS Tom.

I last ran the numbers (directly from NTSB records) in 2015.  At that time the number [numerator] was 682 fatal accidents having occurred in Mooney aircraft.  For the denominator, a quick wikipedia reference finds 9,715 airframes produced (if you add production totals) prior to the Acclaim and Ultra series.  So, rounding Mooney production to 10,000.....682/10,000 obviously is about 7%.  1/15 is 6.66% (apologies to those superstitious).

Fatality data is fatality data; I don't know how it's cherry picked.  

[Andy95W]

Not to stir the pot any more than I have  but was it 682 fatal accidents or 682 fatalities?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, jetdriven said:

So Clarence did he fake the oil pressure gauge failing and just panicked and pulled the chute?  or did he have a legitimate engine problem with the aircraft?

This said “after a loss of for power”, he pulled.   https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/227681

 

i best the latest acclaim crash survivor is wishing he had a Parachute to pull.  The whole thing is sad, and preventable. 
 

No, it was a legit engine problem.  Cylinders 3&4 melted all 4 spark plugs, I’ll look and see if I still have the pictures of the plugs.  An IO-360 in a draggy biplane won’t maintain altitude on 2 cylinders.  Because it wasn’t and aerobatic flight he wasn’t wearing his own parachute.

Clarence

[Tom]

6 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Not to stir the pot any more than I have  but was it 682 fatal accidents or 682 fatalities?

So the number is now 710 airframes.   People can run this themselves.  Go to https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx  and set the search for ~1950 to today, Mooney (as manufacturer), fatal as injury severity.

A quick review of the most recent 200 airframe losses shows ~334 lives lost associated with those accidents.  One can generalize the total fatality count up to 710 airframes to far exceed 1,000 souls lost.  Very, very costly.

The above is a very quick/dirty analysis that took about 5 minutes; it is admittedly completely crude without case-by-case read to distinguish mechanism of the fatality # listed on the search result page.

Within the context of a chute discussion...obviously not all the fatal accidents occurred in an operational phase where the chute could have been a benefit (e.g. in failure to launch accidents).  But in those accidents the other intrinsic safety features (e.g. roll-cage, shoulder belt or not) were relied upon, with associated results. And obviously many accidents are Darwin feats by any measure (a phenomenon not unique to any manufacturer's statistics).  Also, odd-ball stuff like maybe a Mooney being landed upon (or something) likely are in the 710 number, but still.

At any rate, arguments against chutes as being more expensive to either the flying community or to the larger society are completely devoid of greater understanding of the real world...at least from my perspective.
 

[aviatoreb]

8 hours ago, Tom said:

There's potential, and there's reality.  A little more than 1 out of every 15 Mooney airframes that left Kerrville ended up in a fatal accident.  The 1 in 15 doesn't include all the accidents that resulted in ~only permanent disability, serious but recovered injuries, and otherwise written-off airframes.

 

That is an interesting number Tom.  Where did you find it?

So for relevance I would wish to see that also compared to other makes and models.

[aviatoreb]

22 minutes ago, Tom said:

So the number is now 710 airframes.   People can run this themselves.  Go to https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx  and set the search for ~1950 to today, Mooney (as manufacturer), fatal as injury severity.

A quick review of the most recent 200 airframe losses shows ~334 lives lost associated with those accidents.  One can generalize the total fatality count up to 710 airframes to far exceed 1,000 souls lost.  Very, very costly.

The above is a very quick/dirty analysis that took about 5 minutes; it is admittedly completely crude without case-by-case read to distinguish mechanism of the fatality # listed on the search result page.

Within the context of a chute discussion...obviously not all the fatal accidents occurred in an operational phase where the chute could have been a benefit (e.g. in failure to launch accidents).  But in those accidents the other intrinsic safety features (e.g. roll-cage, shoulder belt or not) were relied upon, with associated results. And obviously many accidents are Darwin feats by any measure (a phenomenon not unique to any manufacturer's statistics).  Also, odd-ball stuff like maybe a Mooney being landed upon (or something) likely are in the 710 number, but still.

At any rate, arguments against chutes as being more expensive to either the flying community or to the larger society are completely devoid of greater understanding of the real world...at least from my perspective.
 

Tom, I agree that you are approaching this statistically rather than anecdotally as the others are.  

One can always cherry pick anectotes in favor or against merits of something regarding safety.

The question as far as I am concerned is lying in the NTSB records.  How have each of the aircraft manufactures fared regarding accidents and also fatalities, per 100,000 of exposure, during a period of a decade say.  Going all the way back to 1950 is probably not relevant since so much of operations practice, pilots, maintenance, weather forecasting, etc has changed.  I would be interested in the last decade.  If the parachute is better it should stand out in the statistics.  Not just an anecdote.  It sure seems like it should be better, but is it?  

Here is the closest I see to such a collection of statistics, and in this collection (which I do not vouch for) it seems like the answer is no.  Cirrus has a highest fatality rate and in fact this listing says its the worst.  Best is Cessna and in fact even better is a piper J3.  Mooney is middlin'.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/accident-rates-for-common-ga-aircraft.103339/

(assuming those collected stats are right) I would think nonetheless that the parachute is a good thing, and perhaps all things being equal cirrus would be much worse still for fatality rate if not for the parachute.  But I mostly am guessing the Cirrus is a very good airplane but people who buy them are predispised to fly in a risky manner and they perhaps do so, and that risky behavior outweighs that parachute that is there to save them.  Case in point - I do not fly at night in my single engine piston as a matter of personal minimums (not opening that for debate - just asserting), but I know that if I had a parachute I would....but would  be safer with an airplane with a parachute at night than flying in a Mooney in the day?  My guess is no - not as far as what that would look like across a population of pilots and airplanes.

Edited August 5, 2019 by aviatoreb

[RogueOne]

8 hours ago, Tom said:

I last ran the numbers (directly from NTSB records) in 2015.  At that time the number [numerator] was 682 fatal accidents having occurred in Mooney aircraft.  For the denominator, a quick wikipedia reference finds 9,715 airframes produced (if you add production totals) prior to the Acclaim and Ultra series.  So, rounding Mooney production to 10,000.....682/10,000 obviously is about 7%.  1/15 is 6.66% (apologies to those superstitious).

Fatality data is fatality data; I don't know how it's cherry picked.  

Multiple in an aircraft that goes down.  That would be just one example of “cherry picking” numbers.  Figures lie and liars figure is an adage that I live by when it comes to statistics.  Anyone that drops a stat out of the vapor with no supporting information and then disappers back into the ether is SUSPECT NUMBER ONE for an agenda.  Not buying what you are selling.

[aviatoreb]

1 minute ago, RogueOne said:

Multiple in an aircraft that goes down.  That would be just one example of “cherry picking” numbers.  Figures lie and liars figure is an adage that I live by when it comes to statistics.  Anyone that drops a stat out of the vapor with no supporting information and then disappers back into the ether is SUSPECT NUMBER ONE for an agenda.  Not buying what you are selling.

That is right - it is easy to lie with faux-statistics. Take it from me - I really know what I am talking about on this topic as I have taught statistics many times and I am a math professor by trade (but not a stats professor),

But it is also quite important and possible to actually do a good statistical study on a topic like this, one that is designed to faithfully study the problem, and that includes all assertions of which data was included, how it was included, why some might be rejected, etc.  Such as when above I was asserting that perhaps the oldest data from the 1950's would be perhaps less relevant when comparing to another airplane that may not have existed until 2000.  Doing a good statistical study is not something one does in 5 or 10 min.  A I bet a good statistician who is familiar with the data sources already (where. to find all the right data) could put together a good study in about a days work.  A full work-days worth of work.  The sort of thing that an organization such as the Nail report people could and should do.  Consider this as like legal advice when one hires a lawyer.  A real job takes a real pro to actually dive in.  Anything less may be surprisingly wildly wrong and perhaps worse than none.  Eg in the legal advice scenario - suppose you had a real problem for which you needed a lawyer to investigate options, say on an expensive and intricate land deal worth millions and involving interactions of many different entities - would you consider the 5 min knee jerk job worth much - I wouldn't.  (RogueOne this is addresses "you" but I mean I am addressing this to all of us, not you specifically).

[RogueOne]

13 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Tom, I agree that you are approaching this statistically rather than anecdotally as the others are.  

One can always cherry pick anectotes in favor or against merits of something regarding safety.

The question as far as I am concerned is lying in the NTSB records.  How have each of the aircraft manufactures fared regarding accidents and also fatalities, per 100,000 of exposure, during a period of a decade say.  Going all the way back to 1950 is probably not relevant since so much of operations practice, pilots, maintenance, weather forecasting, etc has changed.  I would be interested in the last decade.  If the parachute is better it should stand out in the statistics.  Not just an anecdote.  It sure seems like it should be better, but is it?  

Here is the closest I see to such a collection of statistics, and in this collection (which I do not vouch for) it seems like the answer is no.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/accident-rates-for-common-ga-aircraft.103339/

Thank you for posting this.  The comments point out some additional areas of bias in the totals.  This is a MUCH better use of statistics as it shows many makes and signifigant models within their ranks.  Of course the “new Cirrus” that is saying pull early/pull often will no doubt get those numbers back in line...