BRS evaluation

[DonMuncy]

From my reading, it appears there are two lines of thinking on parachute equipped planes. Those who count every "red handle pull" as a life saved, and those who believe that a real pilot would never need or use one. I admit that I lean a little toward the latter, but recognize they have saved some lives. Wouldn't it be nice if someone could do a really comprehensive, non-biased evaluation of the incidents is which the parachutes were used. I know it would be difficult, but it seems one could separate them into "virtually certainly saved a life", "almost certainly were pulled without good reason" and "perhaps life saving". 

Or am I just day-dreaming?

 

[Pinecone]

See if you can contact Paul Bertorelli on AVWEB.  It seems like something he might be interested in tackling.

[EricJ]

I think it'll be tough to fully evaluate, since much of it may be subjective.   I recall a local case where a rented Cirrus on the way from AZ to CA had an engine failure of sorts, enough that a forced landing was imminent.  The pilot deployed the parachute which provided a survivable landing, but my recollection is that the airplane was damaged. 

In that case the decision to the deploy the parachute may have been influence by the fact that it was a rental aircraft.   If it were me, I think I'd not spend as much time in a rental looking for a suitable place to land in questionable terrain as I might if it were my own airplane.

[exM20K]

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/safety/cirrus-at-25-a-safer-airplane/

https://www.cirruspilots.org/Safety/CAPS-Event-History

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

See if you can contact Paul Bertorelli on AVWEB.  It seems like something he might be interested in tackling.

Tackled without a targeting penalty.

 

[Fly Boomer]

Watched the Paul Bertorelli vid.  If you didn't watch it, the TL;DR is "Cirrus started out with a slightly higher than average fatal accident rate, but now it's slightly lower than average".

But his numbers give the lie to our vaunted "Nascar roll cage".  See below for 2012 data:

 

[carusoam]

What I think I see….

1) if the plane doesn’t get flown much… it is much safer…

2) Anyone have significant time in a DA40?

 

Would a parachute help our most feared situations…

1) VFR: flight into IMC…

2) VFR: running out of gas…

3) IFR: flight into icing…

4) IFR: flight into thunderstorms…

5) Botched base to final turn…

6) Botched goaround…

7) Broken engine on climb out…

8) Engine out during cruise…

 

Keep the brain sharp…  with and without a parachute, the brain is still required to work strongly….

 

We have seen a few Mooney accidents that occurred in inhospitable places after passing up better opportunities…  roads are kinda a coin flip…

PP thoughts only,

-a-

[ArtVandelay]

Chute won’t help if below pattern altitude, don’t forget there’s a delay from the “oh crap” moment to the pull.

Many of the causes can be eliminated by using some discretion while still on the ground.

I wonder how many Mooney accidents are a result of a stalling, especially at lower altitudes. 172,etc stalls are quite benign, Mooneys are not.

[Jerry 5TJ]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

• I wonder how many Mooney accidents are a result of a stalling, especially at lower altitudes. 172,etc stalls are quite benign, Mooneys are not.

An inadvertent stall at pattern altitude is serious in a 172 or a Mooney.  That’s not because either aircraft stalls in a nasty way but because of insufficient time and altitude to recover.  

I’m curious—Where does the belief that a Mooney stall is “not benign” originate?  I admit that it—the belief—is widespread. 

One of the first things I have a new-to-me Mooney student do is slow flight and stalls, for two reasons:  First, to dispel the commonly-held belief that the Mooney stall behavior is unpredictable or vicious. Next, to see what the several-decades-old ASI actually reads before we use it to gauge landing speeds.  

 

[Pinecone]

14 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Watched the Paul Bertorelli vid.  If you didn't watch it, the TL;DR is "Cirrus started out with a slightly higher than average fatal accident rate, but now it's slightly lower than average".

But his numbers give the lie to our vaunted "Nascar roll cage".  See below for 2012 data:

 

What RATE are they using?

For this comparison, the proper one would be percentage of accidents that are fatal.  Not the number of fatal accidents per X flight hours or per number of planes.

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, carusoam said:

Would a parachute help our most feared situations…

1) VFR: flight into IMC… Yes, if the person realizes and pulls the handle

2) VFR: running out of gas… Yes

3) IFR: flight into icing… Maybe

4) IFR: flight into thunderstorms… Probably not

5) Botched base to final turn… Nope

6) Botched goaround… Nope

7) Broken engine on climb out… Maybe, depends on how hign

8) Engine out during cruise… Yes

The issue some some circumstances is the pilot recognizing that there is a problem, admitting that the answer is the chute, pulling the handle, and the time from handle pull to full deployment.

Cirrus greatly reduced their rate with Cirrus specific training and getting pilots to understand that pulling the handle is not a bad thing, the insurance will handle it. 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

What RATE are they using?

For this comparison, the proper one would be percentage of accidents that are fatal.  Not the number of fatal accidents per X flight hours or per number of planes.

Rate suggests a quotient -- quantity X per quantity Y.  I didn't look it up, but "rate" probably comes from the same Latin root as "ratio".  In this case quantity Y is 100,000 flight hours so, according to Paul, the industry average (in 2012) was 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours, and the Mooney rate was 1.9 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours -- the worst on his chart.  I don't really understand your assertion that "the proper one would be percentage of accidents that are fatal".  The rate he used removes the bias that might be introduced by the fact that Cessna probably flies way more hours than Beech or Mooney or any of the others.

[Fly Boomer]

3 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

An inadvertent stall at pattern altitude is serious in a 172 or a Mooney.  That’s not because either aircraft stalls in a nasty way but because of insufficient time and altitude to recover.  

I’m curious—Where does the belief that a Mooney stall is “not benign” originate?  I admit that it—the belief—is widespread. 

One of the first things I have a new-to-me Mooney student do is slow flight and stalls, for two reasons:  First, to dispel the commonly-held belief that the Mooney stall behavior is unpredictable or vicious. Next, to see what the several-decades-old ASI actually reads before we use it to gauge landing speeds.  

 

I apologize for the long quote, but it may partially answer the "where did the rep come from" question.  After experiencing a particularly terrifying unrecoverable flat spin in an early Mooney (which he had allowed to spin more than one turn), Rich Stowell (the spin guy) wrote in his excellent book The Light Airplane Pilot's Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness:

"It was surprising that this unrecoverable spin occurred at maximum forward c.g. and maximum gross weight, normally a benign loading for spins.  Not surprising, though, was that my extracurricular activities were ruled excessive by FAA management.  The airplane was certified after subsequent tests by me showed that it met the letter of the one-turn spin requirement at both forward and aft c.g. loadings.  But during FAA flight tests the following year, the next Mooney model to be manufactured went flat at the one-turn point at aft c.g.  The FAA test pilot, Ramon Gibson, had to bail out after the spin chute failed to deploy.  And a few months later, a new Mooney was lost to a flat spin during a sales demonstration flight.  Amazingly, the sales demo pilot and three passengers survived with injuries -— a testament to the fact that flat spins have much slower descent rates than steeper spins.  That and the fact that the airplane luckily skinnied down the trunk of a pine tree, knocking off branches and lessening the force of ground impact.  The harrowing story of this demonstration flight later appeared in the March 1981 issue of Popular Mechanics.  My spin test results in 1960 had shown that the airplane was close to the ragged edge of bad spins, but the manufacturer was not required to investigate further."

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Agree one shouldn’t spin a Mooney.   Or a Cirrus or an Airbus 330, either.   But we were talking about stalls, and the aversion to slow flight or incipient stalls, among Mooney pilots.  

[Pinecone]

4 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Rate suggests a quotient -- quantity X per quantity Y.  I didn't look it up, but "rate" probably comes from the same Latin root as "ratio".  In this case quantity Y is 100,000 flight hours so, according to Paul, the industry average (in 2012) was 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours, and the Mooney rate was 1.9 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours -- the worst on his chart.  I don't really understand your assertion that "the proper one would be percentage of accidents that are fatal".  The rate he used removes the bias that might be introduced by the fact that Cessna probably flies way more hours than Beech or Mooney or any of the others.

Yes, rate is a ratio, you just have to know what the two units of measurement are.

Overall fatality rate does not tell us which plane is more survivable, it just tells us that one crashes hard more.

The rate needed for this discussion is the fatality rate per crash.    

 

[ArtVandelay]

Agree one shouldn’t spin a Mooney.   Or a Cirrus or an Airbus 330, either.   But we were talking about stalls, and the aversion to slow flight or incipient stalls, among Mooney pilots.  

During my transition training the first time I did a stall, I did it like I have with 172s…fairly aggressively, the wing dropped 90° almost instantly.
After some instruction, I did it again, but slowly approaching the stall like I was sneaking up on it, and recovered when I got the buffeting.

But I still slow flight every time I fly, just before I touchdown. ;-)

[Ibra]

11 hours ago, carusoam said:

Anyone have significant time in a DA40?

You can strap yoke full back and let go, it settle for 49kts forward & -15kts vertical and likely a guarantee to walk away on impact 

I used to instruct on them, I gather they are pretty safe, yes it’s fiber and fantastic plastic but appearances are deceiving: they are easy to operate, they were tested “car style” specs (not required by FAR23 or CS23), designed with fire proof in fuel lines and fuel cells, the stall is very benign with no wing drop, majority are operated in long paved runways rather than backcountry plus they have superb performance…Diamond carried some of that same logic in twins DA42 & DA62 are the easiest twins one can fly, in Europe there is even a requirement to retrain on multi-engine if planning to go from these to legacy twins 

Having said that, if one is looking for apple to apple on M20J, DA40, PA28, SR20 they end up buying M20J, it’s hard to debate relative performance numbers…who cares about aggregate safety numbers for types, especially one that compares types built in 1970 with those built after 2000? are we looking at CFIT on Airways pre-GPS days? 

http://www.mooney201.de/why-a-mooney-.html

Now honest granular safety analysis: Mooney cage is proved to work in controlled crashes but risks of getting stuck or fire is not off table (although, can be mitigated: cut fuel, crack door open, get hammer or use baggage door ), for other inconveniences: the majestic landing bounce or the scary stall wing drop, well it’s not walk in the park and it pays to get good initial training and keep currency: you get lot of fast cruise speed but you pay it back in landing behaviour and slow speed handling…one has to understand this trade-off while flying Mooney, they require precise speed control on landing and slow flight, that’s it

I don’t think it’s rocket science: you put load of fuel, keep lot of height, use full runway   engine ON or OFF, you keep wing level and fly sensible speeds  if it’s too much one should get SR20 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Ibra

[carusoam]

Sooooo…..

We covered a few things… Some situations…

1) pull the handle all you want… the chute is physically unable to help…

2) PIC is such a dope…. He didn’t prevent the need to pull the handle… (saving a dope still counts as one full life)

3) PIC is trained to pull the handle… on short final, with plenty of speed and altitude to reach the runway… (this is not a save, but it is the training)

4) There are going to be some saves that don’t really count…

5) There are going to be some saves that do count… like the guy who was in and out of consciousness…near NYC.  Left the engine running to steer the chute.

6) There is one situation, I would not want to pull the handle… engine fire…. There probably is an interesting procedure for this one…

 

Never hear about a chute pull that lands in the wrong place, or on a really windy day…

Expect the the numbers to be be massaged to tell the story that the story writer wants people to hear…

 

PP thoughts only, not a statistician….

Best regards,

-a-

[Jerry 5TJ]

1 minute ago, carusoam said:

There is one situation, I would not want to pull the handle… engine fire…. There probably is an interesting procedure for this one…

How about …. pull chute, during ride down open canopy, use fire ax to chop a hole in cowling, squirt fire extinguisher into engine compartment?   I bet it would work in a Hollywood production.  And the photogenic gal in the right seat would swoon in appreciation.  
Cut!  

[hais]

2 hours ago, Ibra said:

You can strap yoke full back and let go, it settle for 49kts forward & -15kts vertical and likely a guarantee to walk away on impact 

I used to instruct on them, I gather they are pretty safe, yes it’s fiber and fantastic plastic but appearances are deceiving: they are easy to operate, they were tested “car style” specs (not required by FAR23 or CS23), designed with fire proof in fuel lines and fuel cells, the stall is very benign with no wing drop, majority are operated in long paved runways rather than backcountry plus they have superb performance…Diamond carried some of that same logic in twins DA42 & DA62 are the easiest twins one can fly, in Europe there is even a requirement to retrain on multi-engine if planning to go from these to legacy twins 

Having said that, if one is looking for apple to apple on M20J, DA40, PA28, SR20 they end up buying M20J, it’s hard to debate relative performance numbers…who cares about aggregate safety numbers for types, especially one that compares types built in 1970 with those built after 2000? are we looking at CFIT on Airways pre-GPS days? 

http://www.mooney201.de/why-a-mooney-.html

Now honest granular safety analysis: Mooney cage is proved to work in controlled crashes but risks of getting stuck or fire is not off table (although, can be mitigated: cut fuel, crack door open, get hammer or use baggage door ), for other inconveniences: the majestic landing bounce or the scary stall wing drop, well it’s not walk in the park and it pays to get good initial training and keep currency: you get lot of fast cruise speed but you pay it back in landing behaviour and slow speed handling…one has to understand this trade-off while flying Mooney, they require precise speed control on landing and slow flight, that’s it

I don’t think it’s rocket science: you put load of fuel, keep lot of height, use full runway   engine ON or OFF, you keep wing level and fly sensible speeds  if it’s too much one should get SR20 

That, plus the mission. It is a bit of a travesty to engage the A/P in a DA40 and go on a long XC. It was meant for hand flying. 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, hais said:

That, plus the mission. It is a bit of a travesty to engage the A/P in a DA40 and go on a long XC. It was meant for hand flying. 

I owned a da40 without an autopilot - from 2007-2010.  Great hand flying machine very fun plane.  But one thing I wanted in a new to me plane is an autopilot.

[aviatoreb]

On 2/7/2023 at 5:54 PM, Fly Boomer said:

Watched the Paul Bertorelli vid.  If you didn't watch it, the TL;DR is "Cirrus started out with a slightly higher than average fatal accident rate, but now it's slightly lower than average".

But his numbers give the lie to our vaunted "Nascar roll cage".  See below for 2012 data:

 

Really - lie?  I think the word has been misused alot lately to the point it has lost meaning in a lot of circles.

lie - to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.  Is there someone who is trying to trick us?

Or is it for horizontal reclining?

In any case the roll cage concept and a higher than average fatality per hour are not incompatible.  The first is about if there is a crash bring the roll cage, seat belts etc.  but if on average these machines are used in a more dangerous environment, night ifr, etc than an otherwise less safe to crash in machine - I claim the deaths per hour can … lie to you.  Better to say be misunderstood.

 

[carusoam]

How significant of a difference is… 0.1?

1) Parachute safety plane SR20 = 1.8

2) Fast and efficient cool plane M20 = 1.9

Based on that number alone…

The parachute just became irrelevant to me…

Dear lord, please keep my engine running….  

Best regards,

-a-

[Pinecone]

Again, what RATE is that. 

Rate per number of airplanes?

Rate per X number of hours?

For what we are discussing, we need to have the rate of how many of the crashes are fatal ones.

For example, Airplane X fleet flies 1,000,000 hours per year.  Airplane B is 500,000 per year.  If they have the same fatal accident rate per year, Airplane B is more dangerous as they are having fatal crashes twice as often, per hour, as Airplane B.  

Or you can have a case where Airplane A has less crashes per 100,000 hours than B, but a higher percentage of the crashes in A are fatal.  That is what we are talking about.  Not total crashes, but how many of the crashes are fatal.

[Fly Boomer]

11 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Really - lie?  I think the word has been misused alot lately to the point it has lost meaning in a lot of circles.

lie - to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.  Is there someone who is trying to trick us?

Or is it for horizontal reclining?

In any case the roll cage concept and a higher than average fatality per hour are not incompatible.  The first is about if there is a crash bring the roll cage, seat belts etc.  but if on average these machines are used in a more dangerous environment, night ifr, etc than an otherwise less safe to crash in machine - I claim the deaths per hour can … lie to you.  Better to say be misunderstood.

 

See a snip from the Free Dictionary below.  I suppose it's an antiquated usage.