Mooney or Cirrus?

[M20F]

7 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

Furthermore, for arguments sake, lets say that NONE of the deployments were actually required to achieve a safe outcome.  That would mean that the parachute do not increase safety at all. 

Then you would be arguing for the sake of arguing.  

It is clear to me if you have CAPS and use it properly you live. If you want to see it otherwise fair enough but 100% survivability is a compelling statistic to me. 

[aviatoreb]

47 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

I know, that is why I said " at best"

I should have mentioned the flip side for clarity... the flip side being that the fleet size and hours flown being considered might show that the Mooney is more safe even without the chute..

At best doesn't change anything.  Not calibrating for fleet size can grossly misstate the relative relationships in either direction, too high or too small.

[aviatoreb]

47 minutes ago, M20F said:

The only thing that matters statistically is there has never been a fatality in a CAPS deployment within the envelope (and the envelope is reasonably big).  I really don’t know what other statistics matter to the conversation.  

Based on current odds you have 100% survivability in a Cirrus in envelope.  Nobody else can claim that.  

I disagree.  Strongly.  The only thing that matters statistically is the probability of death per hour of exposure to flying in a Cirrus. Vs the probability of death per hour of exposure of flying in a Mooney.

The numbers are much closer than you would guess given one of the airplanes has a parachute, and when they were new, the numbers were much worse for the airplane with a parachute.  Why - doesn't matter statistically.  Why does matter to me though - and I would guess - but I do not know - I would guess it has something to do with the parachute lulling people into more risky behavior and parachutes can't save people from all such situations.

[M20F]

13 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

 I would guess it has something to do with the parachute lulling people into more risky behavior and parachutes can't save people from all such situations.

I don’t think the parachute lulls people into anything.  There are bad pilots out there everywhere.  Before we had Cirrus’s we had Bonanza Dr Killers.  What I thought we were debating is the relative safety of the two planes when operated correctly. 

The issue and I think we have seen this through the pull early and often training is people are part of the safety equation.  It is akin to putting an air bag in a car and requiring a driver to decide whether to use it or not.  

There is no doubt to me though that it is a safer plane when operated properly.  

[Austintatious]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

At best doesn't change anything.  Not calibrating for fleet size can grossly misstate the relative relationships in either direction, too high or too small.

I dunno why you are so hung up on this...  My entire point was that this basic data really tells us nothing.  I was simply saying "it is useless data by its self, but if we use it anyway it only shows a slightly better safety record for the cirrus"

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

I dunno why you are so hung up on this...  My entire point was that this basic data really tells us nothing.  I was simply saying "it is useless data by its self, but if we use it anyway it only shows a slightly better safety record for the cirrus"

That data as you stated it shows nothing whatsoever.  I dunno why you are hung up on the idea of use it anyway has any relevance to anything.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, M20F said:

I don’t think the parachute lulls people into anything.  There are bad pilots out there everywhere.  Before we had Cirrus’s we had Bonanza Dr Killers.  What I thought we were debating is the relative safety of the two planes when operated correctly. 

The issue and I think we have seen this through the pull early and often training is people are part of the safety equation.  It is akin to putting an air bag in a car and requiring a driver to decide whether to use it or not.  

There is no doubt to me though that it is a safer plane when operated properly.  

I agree with your last paragraph.

i understand now you say you have been debating the relative safety of the planes but I was debating the actual safety all things included.  Or rather I was more so asserting what I think the statistics can say.  So I am more so standing up for statistics as a field than I am standing up for airplanes.  Call it a geeks position.  I do.

i disagree with your first.  If I had a cirrus I bet I would start flying at night and in low ifr etc.  despite I know it’s a bad idea.  So count me as easily lulled.  My point is it might be used less properly but yours is it shouldn’t and if it is it is safer so I think we are making completely compatible assertions on that part.

Anyway bulk statistics of safety per 100,000 hrs of exposure show relatively minor difference to a degree that is surprising to me, whether or not I am correct as to why it is so.

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by aviatoreb

[M20F]

19 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

If I had a cirrus I bet I would start flying at night and in low ifr etc.  despite I know it’s a bad idea.  

I really don’t know what to say other then you should probably reflect on your decision making not just in aviation debates but in all things.  

[Hank]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

I really don’t know what to say other then you should probably reflect on your decision making not just in aviation debates but in all things.  

Just proves he's a normal human. When ABS brakes first came out, accident rates for equipped cars went down, enough so that I got an insurance discount for about three years. Then human nature asserted itself, people realized they could stop better without sliding and started driving faster and following closer because they had an "out." Accident rates went back up to where tbey had been and insurance discounts went away.

Chutes in a plane are tbe same way. Long term accident rates will stabilize at normal levels as pilots figure out tbey can take those riskier fligbts, because if it doesn't work out, they can pull the chute. Like Mr. Breathless and his selfie video, which to me was more of an ad for his personal location device. In my Mooney, I'd have kept the gear up and aimed for that nice lake in the background, close to shore. That's not a good option with fixed tricycle gear, but it looks like the trees weren't, either.

I'll say it again:  look up Risk Homeostasis. It's human character, period, and it applies to all of us in varying degrees from one activity to another.

Reminded me of the Cirrus pilot I read about in AOPA magazine who departed into low IMC, became disoriented and pullled the chute, landing a couple of miles from his point of departure. Betcha in a chuteless plane, he'd have stayed in the ground until conditions improved. So how much "safety" did his chute add to the flight? It emboldened him to make a risky flight, then kept him alive when the house won, which happens a lot when you bet against the odds . . . . 

[aviatoreb]

On 8/4/2019 at 7:53 PM, RogueOne said:

 

Not many options with a fixed gear...

Something looked so very familiar with this breathless selfie-video - in the Woods.

then I remembered -

the Blair Witch project, 1999:

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by aviatoreb

[Tom]

2 hours ago, M20F said:

I really don’t know what to say other then you should probably reflect on your decision making not just in aviation debates but in all things.  

I think you threw the baby out and drank the bathwater.  I'm 99% certain that you'd agree with Eric if you sat down in real life and talked about this.

The risk homeostasis concept is fairly useless for dynamic systems.  To my knowledge the COMT worrier vs warrior gene thing is one of the underlying biological concepts that defines this personality trait.  The thing is you can't parlay risk behavior in one venue alone (e.g. in aviation behavior).  The warrior-type risk taker indeed may not take more risks in his chute equipped plane....instead he might take up chainsaw juggling (to get his dopamine hit) and end up off the NTSB list.  To the contrary, the worrier pilot may be emboldened and take further risks....taking off with a crosswind or something (former hangarmate of mine).  In any event...if someone takes further risks and comes out alive...well...they've flown and are not in the NTSB database as a negative statistic.  Mission accomplished.  Right?

So you do need a metric of accident rate in terms of distance traveled.  You also need one for time aloft during travel.  And one that accounts for many...seemingly countless variables both for the pilots who ended up in accidents...and...more difficult...all the aforemented countless variables for pilots (inverse thinking) who never get in accidents.  Then, on an individual level....for example the buyer trying to choose plane A vs plane B with respect to accident statistics....match the buyer profile with the buyer's specific mission profile...as well as the specific risk taking behavior....etc ad nauseum.  I don't think it'd take a day to run this.  More like a team in industry many, many months to compile models....or never by the FAA, withstanding it being their mandate and all.

I think the point that you're trying to make is that a save is a f'ing save.  To this, I agree wholeheartedly.

I too would make flights with a chute that I don't make without one.  Just like I make more trips far away with my plane than I do by walking.  It's all relative.  But I have no qualms about pulling the chute and being called a puss by the cognitively impaired in society (they too need their dopamine hit...however they get it).

[MRussell]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

Chutes in a plane are tbe same way. Long term accident rates will stabilize at normal levels as pilots figure out tbey can take those riskier fligbts, because if it doesn't work out, they can pull the chute.

Not if COPA has anything to say about it, in the long run. 

[Hank]

7 hours ago, MRussell said:

Not if COPA has anything to say about it, in the long run. 

They will never overcome the human in the left seat. Having the chute has been demonstrated to not keep people from departing into conditions that they can't handle, or to attempt flights (many safety completed, some not) that the pilot would not have tried without the chute. Very few if any will fly a plane with BRS the exact same way and mission profile that they would without it, thus the safety improvement will never be what the many apologists proclaim so loudly. And that also confounds attempts to calculate the real safety benefit, besides the fact that every situation when the chute has been pulled would not have been fatal without it.

[RogueOne]

9 hours ago, Tom said:

I think you threw the baby out and drank the bathwater.  I'm 99% certain that you'd agree with Eric if you sat down in real life and talked about this.

The risk homeostasis concept is fairly useless for dynamic systems.  To my knowledge the COMT worrier vs warrior gene thing is one of the underlying biological concepts that defines this personality trait.  The thing is you can't parlay risk behavior in one venue alone (e.g. in aviation behavior).  The warrior-type risk taker indeed may not take more risks in his chute equipped plane....instead he might take up chainsaw juggling (to get his dopamine hit) and end up off the NTSB list.  To the contrary, the worrier pilot may be emboldened and take further risks....taking off with a crosswind or something (former hangarmate of mine).  In any event...if someone takes further risks and comes out alive...well...they've flown and are not in the NTSB database as a negative statistic.  Mission accomplished.  Right?

So you do need a metric of accident rate in terms of distance traveled.  You also need one for time aloft during travel.  And one that accounts for many...seemingly countless variables both for the pilots who ended up in accidents...and...more difficult...all the aforemented countless variables for pilots (inverse thinking) who never get in accidents.  Then, on an individual level....for example the buyer trying to choose plane A vs plane B with respect to accident statistics....match the buyer profile with the buyer's specific mission profile...as well as the specific risk taking behavior....etc ad nauseum.  I don't think it'd take a day to run this.  More like a team in industry many, many months to compile models....or never by the FAA, withstanding it being their mandate and all.

I think the point that you're trying to make is that a save is a f'ing save.  To this, I agree wholeheartedly.

I too would make flights with a chute that I don't make without one.  Just like I make more trips far away with my plane than I do by walking.  It's all relative.  But I have no qualms about pulling the chute and being called a puss by the cognitively impaired in society (they too need their dopamine hit...however they get it).

I have been called a puss for less...  (just kidding)

[Shadrach]

On 8/5/2019 at 3:38 PM, Austintatious said:

The Cirrus sales team likely says every parachute pull was a life saving event, this is unlikely true.

I am also a fan of BRS but there is no denying the truth of the above statement.

[Shadrach]

On 8/5/2019 at 5:37 PM, M20F said:

I don’t think the parachute lulls people into anything.  There are bad pilots out there everywhere.  Before we had Cirrus’s we had Bonanza Dr Killers.  What I thought we were debating is the relative safety of the two planes when operated correctly.  

Bonanzas killed people because the slick airframe was given to building speed that could easily exceed the flutter and load tolerances for the tail.

The anecdotal story I linked from 3 years ago regarding my encounter with an SR20 pilot and his wife is certainly an outlier.  However, were it not for the chute I do not believe that he would have been flying an aircraft that burned through its oil capacity faster than its fuel capacity and had endured several low/no oil pressure events. 

Also, "Operated Correctly" is entirely subjective.  People have lived into old age doing things that others think are nuts. Operated within the confines of the regulations is the only measure we have. One way of gleaning more info on accident rates is to breakout illegal behavior.  

[aviatoreb]

15 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I am also a fan of BRS but there is no denying the truth of the above statement.

I deny it.

[Shadrach]

9 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I deny it.

So you know that every BRS save would have have been a fatal in a conventional aircraft? 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Shadrach

[aviatoreb]

39 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

So you know that every BRS save would have have been a fatal in a conventional aircraft? 

I didn't say that.

But actually, no that I read more closely - I think I denied a double negative but I thought I was denying only a second negative?  So I plead stupidity.

Decompressing my stupidity: I thought I read that you were agreeing that every chute pull should be counted as a save.  And I was saying no since even if the person were saved, I would say that some of those chute pulls were solving a problem created by people taking overly large risks because they have a chute.  But now I read that I think you were agreeing with austinaceous (fun avatar name!) that you are disagreeing with the cirrus salesman, so I herewith change my answer to, "I agree!"  Never let it be said that I never admit that I am wrong. Doh.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I didn't say that.

But actually, no that I read more closely - I think I denied a double negative but I thought I was denying only a second negative?  So I plead stupidity.

Decompressing my stupidity: I thought I read that you were agreeing that every chute pull should be counted as a save.  And I was saying no since even if the person were saved, I would say that some of those chute pulls were solving a problem created by people taking overly large risks because they have a chute.  But now I read that I think you were agreeing with austinaceous (fun avatar name!) that you are disagreeing with the cirrus salesman, so I herewith change my answer to, "I agree!"  Never let it be said that I never admit that I am wrong. Doh.

Makes sense. I found it hard to believe you were taking the opposing position. Thanks for clarifying! So, you're clearly not into the whole brevity thing...

PS. Some of those chute pulls were not created by overly large risks yet likely still could have been satisfactorily resolved by means other than a chute. 

Furthermore if one were to say that all of the BRS pulls were indeed going to be fatalities without the system, that would suggest that the Cirrus safety record would be abysmal without it. I don’t believe this to be true by the way.  Some folks are trying to have it both ways. It’s hard to say that Cirrus makes a superior product if you believe that nearly 200 additional people would be dead without the BRS.   That just makes the BRS look like a Band-Aid for a more risky design.  Again, not something that I believe to be true.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Shadrach

[kortopates]

58 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I didn't say that.

But actually, no that I read more closely - I think I denied a double negative but I thought I was denying only a second negative?  So I plead stupidity.

Decompressing my stupidity: I thought I read that you were agreeing that every chute pull should be counted as a save.  And I was saying no since even if the person were saved, I would say that some of those chute pulls were solving a problem created by people taking overly large risks because they have a chute.  But now I read that I think you were agreeing with austinaceous (fun avatar name!) that you are disagreeing with the cirrus salesman, so I herewith change my answer to, "I agree!"  Never let it be said that I never admit that I am wrong. Doh.

I really don't get why some of you, not just Erik and Ross (if I understand correctly), don't want to give credit to a chute saving someone for being stupid? We have pilots of all abilities, experience and of course poor decision making abilities. Buy we could say that most accidents are the result of pilots doing something stupid. So why would anyone suggest that if a "better or less stupid" pilot could have gotten the plane out of the situation successfully without using the chute, or avoided getting into that situation to begin with,  then that save shouldn't count??? You might as well as claim, stupid lives don't matter. In my mind if it saved a stupid pilot, it saved a life which is the only relevant fact. Its irrelevant to me that that pilot's own stupidity got them into the situation to begin with because their are always going to be pilots that feel that way. Being human is being stupid at times. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by kortopates

[DonMuncy]

I think this chute vs no chute discussion to be overworked. I think that virtually all of us would take a BRS if it were free, had no weight, and required zero maintenance. Once you take those into account, then it becomes a question of value vs all three of those, and thus a personal decision.

[Hank]

33 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I really don't get why some of you, not just Erik and Ross (if I understand correctly), don't want to give credit to a chute saving someone for being stupid? We have pilots of all abilities, experience and of course poor decision making abilities. Buy we could say that most accidents are the result of pilots doing something stupid. So why would anyone suggest that if a "better or less stupid" pilot could have gotten the plane out of the situation successfully without using the chute, or avoided getting into that situation to begin with,  then that save shouldn't count??? You might as well as claim, stupid lives don't matter. In my mind if it saved a stupid pilot, it saved a life which is the only relevant fact. Its irrelevant to me that that pilot's own stupidity got them into the situation to begin with because their are always going to be pilots that feel that way. Being human is being stupid at times. 

The point trying to be made is that even some of the stupid pilot tricks are recoverable / can be saved without pulling the chute.

Rather like the Cirrus guy who got in a kerfluffle, pulled the red handle, fired rockets, deployed drogue then recovered and landed at an airport with the still-bundled-up chute dragging on the runway behind him.

Every chute pull would not have been a fatal accident without the chute.

[RogueOne]

35 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I really don't get why some of you, not just Erik and Ross (if I understand correctly), don't want to give credit to a chute saving someone for being stupid? We have pilots of all abilities, experience and of course poor decision making abilities. Buy we could say that most accidents are the result of pilots doing something stupid. So why would anyone suggest that if a "better or less stupid" pilot could have gotten the plane out of the situation successfully without using the chute, or avoided getting into that situation to begin with,  then that save shouldn't count??? You might as well as claim, stupid lives don't matter. In my mind if it saved a stupid pilot, it saved a life which is the only relevant fact. Its irrelevant to me that that pilot's own stupidity got them into the situation to begin with because their are always going to be pilots that feel that way. Being human is being stupid at times. 

NOT trying to be mean or contrarian.  We are talking semantics here and I, based on what you wrote, (at the fear of being offensive): You are NOT picking up what I am laying down.  In my opinion the video example is the perfect example as the pilot lost oil pressure over remote area.  His option because he has a fixed gear Cirrus (and would likely flip on water impact) that is EQUIPPED with a Chute, was to pull the chute.  I as a Mooney retractable owner WITHOUT a chute would lower nose and land on the water that was available along the shore.  Each is a potential save outcome.  I am just NOT wanting to pull in this scenario (IF my Mooney was equipped) as I can do a controlled glide and water landing, that while not without exposure to injury or death is to me a better exposure to minimize injury than descending into trees with all that entails.  I am NOT hating on the Cirrus.  I damn well am NOT hating on my Mooney.  Given the choice I choose Mooney NOT Cirrus in this “pull early pull often” scenario.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

I really don't get why some of you, not just Erik and Ross (if I understand correctly), don't want to give credit to a chute saving someone for being stupid? We have pilots of all abilities, experience and of course poor decision making abilities. Buy we could say that most accidents are the result of pilots doing something stupid. So why would anyone suggest that if a "better or less stupid" pilot could have gotten the plane out of the situation successfully without using the chute, or avoided getting into that situation to begin with,  then that save shouldn't count??? You might as well as claim, stupid lives don't matter. In my mind if it saved a stupid pilot, it saved a life which is the only relevant fact. Its irrelevant to me that that pilot's own stupidity got them into the situation to begin with because their are always going to be pilots that feel that way. Being human is being stupid at times. 

You’ve misunderstood me Paul.  It would be helpful if you’d actually quote me rather than interpreting what you believe I’m thinking.  I’d then have a better opportunity to see where I may have misspoken. I have repeatedly extolled the virtues of BRS as a great idea if available.  I would love to have it as an arrow in my quiver but I’m not a one issue voter. I’ve been flying in my current Aircraft since I was born. I, some member of my family or the occasional borrower have been flying it for the last 3500 hours/52 years. During that time we’ve had exactly one in air engine problem that necessitated a diversion and immediate landing.  Maybe that means that the odds are stacked against me. I tend to think it means that we’ve been proactive on maintenance and conservative with our missions .  I’ll  also add that the engine problem in question likely would’ve been avoided with an engine monitor but it was before they were prevalent (early 90s). This got me thinking that if I had to choose between an engine monitor and a chute I would likely take the monitor. (thankfully we don’t have to choose).

 

I love the idea of having a BRS but I take issue with is the notion that the Cirrus 91 pulls would’ve resulted in serious injury or death without It. I’m certain that some number would have but certainly not all. The only thing we can truly derive from the data is that 100% of BRS pulls within BRS limitations have safely delivered all souls on board back to earth safely.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Shadrach