Fly Boomer Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 14 minutes ago, Pinecone said: 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. The danger is precisely equal. For every hour you fly in either airplane, you have exactly the same opportunity to die. I guess you are arguing that the safest airplane is one that never flys? Quote
Fly Boomer Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 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? Paul's video suggests that, in 2012, you were more likely to die in a Mooney (per hour) than any of the other brands listed. Since our airplanes are pretty fast, you might prefer that he had compiled statistics by mile. But that won't help much because Bonanzas, Cirri, and perhaps others are about as fast as a Mooney. There is a persistent idea, at least on this forum, that Mooney is the safest airplane in the sky, partially because of the "roll cage". It's apparently not true. Of course Paul's statistic doesn't consider airplane flight characteristics, pilot training and currency, ADM, average age of the Mooney cohort, or any other potentially mitigating influences -- all it says is that, of the brands listed, Mooney had the highest fatal accident rate in 2012. I don't like it either but, unless his data is bad, those are the facts. 2 Quote
exM20K Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 On 2/8/2023 at 4:29 AM, carusoam said: 2) Anyone have significant time in a DA40? Present! Simply the finest-handling plane in the air I’ve flown. Ground handling with the cantering nose wheel is fine once you’re used to it. as mentioned above, a demonstration we used was full flaps, idle throttle, and full nose up trim. The plane simply wouldn’t break into a stall. It just bobs nose up and down in a 6-800 FPM descent rate. There is something about a stick that is more intuitive than a yoke, especially the side yoke, which I don’t like at all. Elevator and ailerons are moving in concert with one motion of the control, not pul and turn, for example. Tons of passive safety backed into the cake: flail space no fuel lines in the cockpit braided steel fuel lines Tank between the two spars Seats engineered to dissipate vertical force airbags in front outstanding visibility with a very low sill. Still a big fan, but the company just doesn’t make anything suitable for my mission. -dan 1 Quote
exM20K Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 The best takeaway for me from the cirrus crash rate improvement is that training matters. The Nall report records year after year that some mid70’s percent of mishaps have pilot-involved causes. If mishaps are the result of the holes in the stack of Swiss cheese slices aligning, it seems a large majority of mishaps have a pilot-shaped hole in the first slice. I wouldn’t hesitate to fly any of the production singles because of a safety concern regarding the aircraft itself. But I do know I’m probably safer in my Mooney, which I fly 200ish hours per year than in something I haven’t flown regularly or recently. I applaud the Cirrus company and community for emphasizing training at the expense of ego. I still don’t like their planes, though :-) mishap vs accident is a pet peeve of mine from the motorcycle safety and training world. These aren’t accidents. -dan Quote
Fly Boomer Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 2 minutes ago, exM20K said: The best takeaway for me from the cirrus crash rate improvement is that training matters. Agree. We have the PPP, but I'm not sure it's well attended. Bonanza boys have a pretty robust culture of recurrent training, but Cirrus really has it nailed. So much of the Cirrus experience involves interaction with the company and its representatives, they can lean into their recommendations and generate interest and participation. It's a little like a well-funded and well-organized church -- so many activities designed to keep the parishioners in the fold. 1 Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said: See a snip from the Free Dictionary below. I suppose it's an antiquated usage. Touche'. I am definitely not used to that usage but I know it now that I think about it. I know one, lie down as in going to sleep, and the other is a deliberate malicious false assertion for sake of deceit. Which is how I hear it mis-used a lot late. Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said: Paul's video suggests that, in 2012, you were more likely to die in a Mooney (per hour) than any of the other brands listed. Since our airplanes are pretty fast, you might prefer that he had compiled statistics by mile. But that won't help much because Bonanzas, Cirri, and perhaps others are about as fast as a Mooney. There is a persistent idea, at least on this forum, that Mooney is the safest airplane in the sky, partially because of the "roll cage". It's apparently not true. Of course Paul's statistic doesn't consider airplane flight characteristics, pilot training and currency, ADM, average age of the Mooney cohort, or any other potentially mitigating influences -- all it says is that, of the brands listed, Mooney had the highest fatal accident rate in 2012. I don't like it either but, unless his data is bad, those are the facts. conditioned on mission type I would guess it is comparable to the others. So its the pilot's fault, or the mission choice fault is my guess but not the airplane's fault. Quote
Fly Boomer Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 25 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: Touche'. I am definitely not used to that usage but I know it now that I think about it. I know one, lie down as in going to sleep, and the other is a deliberate malicious false assertion for sake of deceit. Which is how I hear it mis-used a lot late. I know what you mean. I do edit my posts to some extent, but sooner or later you have to hit "submit". Unfortunate use of the language on my part. 1 Quote
Fly Boomer Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 25 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: conditioned on mission type I would guess it is comparable to the others. So its the pilot's fault, or the mission choice fault is my guess but not the airplane's fault. I also doubt that it's the airplane's fault, but the things I read around here imply that we are invincible in our Mooneys. Some measure of caution is always a good idea. I know guys who fly other marques at night, over LIFR, or never want to be more than 2,000 feet AGL, only sump their tanks during annual inspection ("I've been flying this airplane for 45 year, and never found water in the gas. If it hasn't happened yet, it's never going to.", etc. I may have done some of those things in the past, but I'm trying to be smarter as I get older. In spite of the Paul Bertorelli video, I'm keeping my Mooney. 1 Quote
Ibra Posted February 9, 2023 Report Posted February 9, 2023 (edited) 17 hours ago, Fly Boomer said: I don't like it either but, unless his data is bad, those are the facts I don't think the data is bad, I sincerely think DA40 is safer than M20 inline with those aggregate numbers but my expectation the spreads should be pretty tight on same mission, pilot skill and use of technology I am not sure how much of those aggregate numbers compare on similar random sample sizes for flying fleet? and similar historical window say 2000-2020? We don't have DA40 data pre-2000? while M20 have old data from 1970, while many think flying in the old days was safer (*) the fatality rate went down from 6 per 100kh toward 1 per 100kh, so any aircraft built in 2020 will look 6 times safer than one built in 1960 https://www.bts.gov/content/us-general-aviationa-safety-data https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/2023-01/table_02_14_011823.xlsx (*) For IFR, you know flying without engine monitor, pre-GPS the old days were fun: shooting raw data ADF in 1sm between heay rain while escaping icing in clean wings from VOR airway between mountains. For VFR, well "VFR in IMC" and "getting lost" or "running out of gas" was something... Edited February 10, 2023 by Ibra 1 Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 10, 2023 Report Posted February 10, 2023 8 hours ago, Fly Boomer said: I also doubt that it's the airplane's fault, but the things I read around here imply that we are invincible in our Mooneys. Some measure of caution is always a good idea. I know guys who fly other marques at night, over LIFR, or never want to be more than 2,000 feet AGL, only sump their tanks during annual inspection ("I've been flying this airplane for 45 year, and never found water in the gas. If it hasn't happened yet, it's never going to.", etc. I may have done some of those things in the past, but I'm trying to be smarter as I get older. In spite of the Paul Bertorelli video, I'm keeping my Mooney. Good points. I for one dont fly night or LIFR. 1 Quote
Pinecone Posted February 10, 2023 Report Posted February 10, 2023 12 hours ago, Fly Boomer said: The danger is precisely equal. For every hour you fly in either airplane, you have exactly the same opportunity to die. I guess you are arguing that the safest airplane is one that never flys? No, they are not. If you have the same rate per X hours, of fatalities, yes. But even then, one airplane may have more crashes than the other, but the same number of fatal ones. And even non-fatal crashes leave lasting issues. BT, DT, have the scars. Quote
carusoam Posted February 10, 2023 Report Posted February 10, 2023 Keep in mind… Nobody is reporting actual hours flown… Logs might record it… Pilots might record it… ADSB may even be able to record most of the flights… except the ones that don’t have ADSB out… But, none of these records have been mandated to be shared with any government or insurance agency… that I know of… -a- Quote
hais Posted February 10, 2023 Report Posted February 10, 2023 Suppose you wanted to improve Mooney's number by 0.6, making it the same as Beech's. What do you address? Is there one significant contributor that stands out similar to Cirrus's push on training? Quote
carusoam Posted February 10, 2023 Report Posted February 10, 2023 38 minutes ago, hais said: Suppose you wanted to improve Mooney's number by 0.6, making it the same as Beech's. What do you address? Is there one significant contributor that stands out similar to Cirrus's push on training? 1) Introduce people to transition training…. Specific to their plane… Then stand back… Transition training is expensive, takes time, and isn’t always appreciated… Many people are unfamiliar with it… 2) Fly more often… get the safe number of hours to increase… a lot. And get currency to increase as well… 3) Get the word out on what the PPP is… 4) Get the word out on how to contact MAPA CFIIs, Mooney specific CFIs etc… When I go to work at Mooney… some time off in the distant future… As a marketing and sales guy… Part of my duties will include a ton of communication… With all of the Mooniacs… from new owners to old owners to future owners… and all of the owners in between… I will have reference docs… Need a good mechanic… here’s a contact for you… Need a good PPI… here’s a contact for you… Have you considered TT… here’s our list of TTers in your neck of the Mooney world… How about insurance… How about finance… MAPA is/was/used to be this type of service… but, it was always independent from the factory… The factory was often mysterious to many people… who would call a factory…when you didn’t buy the plane new from the factory? Soooo…. Its a modern world we live in… linking people together through communication makes them safer… When your business depends on it… Keep the info flowing… Keeping up with every post on MS… is a full day’s work… If you want to add the FB group... Expect more time to be required… Fortunately, the Mooniacs are one giant community… you can get to know them all… over time… Then there are always going to be a few… that are outsiders… for one reason or another… To understand where this post is coming from… Several times a week… we welcome new MSers aboard… often their first post comes right after they bought an airplane… Marketing and selling machinery is a unique business… one part knowing your machine…another part knowing your customer… Spread the word… try to keep everyone that visits MS… to stay… to come back… to visit more often… PP thoughts only, not a social media safety engineer… Best regards, -a- 3 Quote
Pinecone Posted February 10, 2023 Report Posted February 10, 2023 Based on the experience with Cirrus, TRAINING. Aircraft specific training by instructors experienced in the aircraft, with a defined, proper syllabus. Basically the same way airlines and the military do things. Quote
Ibra Posted February 10, 2023 Report Posted February 10, 2023 (edited) On 2/9/2023 at 5:53 AM, carusoam said: The parachute just became irrelevant to me… There are 121 “saves” in 8000 Cirrus aircraft over +40million hours in these over the last 20 years These make evening news and gets debated forever in pilots forums but one has to keep in mind that we are talking about max 0.3 per 100kh of noise in aggregated stats (I am assuming “save” is NFW you would have survived without CAPS ), this does not explain all variability you see in those aggregate numbers or claimed safety of BRS equipped types vs say C182, DA40 or vs Bonnies, Mooneys I know someone who installed BRS STC in his STOL C182 (King Katmai with canards and 30kts stall), if Mooneys offer BRS STC at 10k$? I may buy it but I won’t lose my sleep not having it Edited February 10, 2023 by Ibra 1 Quote
Hank Posted February 11, 2023 Report Posted February 11, 2023 8 hours ago, Ibra said: There are 121 “saves” in 8000 Cirrus aircraft over +40million hours in these over the last 20 years These make evening news and gets debated forever in pilots forums but one has to keep in mind that we are talking about max 0.3 per 100kh of noise in aggregated stats (I am assuming “save” is NFW you would have survived without CAPS ), this does not explain all variability you see in those aggregate numbers or claimed safety of BRS equipped types vs say C182, DA40 or vs Bonnies, Mooneys. A "save" for the parachute means that the pilot pulled the red ring a d the plane floated gently to the ground with zero control, trusting to good luck and favorable winds to "select" a landing site, and tomthe springy gear and fancy seats to absorb the 35mph vertical impact and reduce occupant injury. Every pull is a save! But I'm not sure if Cirrus counts as a save the poor guy who got discombobulated, pulled the red handle, the rocket fired but no chute, so he recovered and flew the plane to a working landing at an airport, dragging the streamer behind him . . . . Also not sure if they count a "save" for the Cirrus filmed descending under the chute while on fire, with lots of black smoke and flames visible. So there may have been 123 pulls for 122 saves, a 2% reduction. 1 Quote
Pinecone Posted February 11, 2023 Report Posted February 11, 2023 There have been a number of pulls that were NOT saves. Mostly because of being out of the envelope. Quote
Fly Boomer Posted February 11, 2023 Report Posted February 11, 2023 8 hours ago, Hank said: A "save" for the parachute means that the pilot pulled the red ring a d the plane floated gently to the ground with zero control, trusting to good luck and favorable winds to "select" a landing site, and tomthe springy gear and fancy seats to absorb the 35mph vertical impact and reduce occupant injury. Every pull is a save! But I'm not sure if Cirrus counts as a save the poor guy who got discombobulated, pulled the red handle, the rocket fired but no chute, so he recovered and flew the plane to a working landing at an airport, dragging the streamer behind him . . . . Also not sure if they count a "save" for the Cirrus filmed descending under the chute while on fire, with lots of black smoke and flames visible. So there may have been 123 pulls for 122 saves, a 2% reduction. Well, you can be sure that Marketing has their fingerprints on those numbers. At least for direct employees, many large and successful companies live by the mantra "everybody sells". Doesn't matter if you answer the phone, janitor, or tech support -- you are selling whether you know it or not. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.