Another Cirrus BRS deployment: [Archive]

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

April 12th 04, 12:39 AM

"ISLIP" > wrote in message
...
> >keep in
> >mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
> >airframes.
>
> Actually, the 1st Cirrus deployed under chute (Lionel Morrison's last
year) was
> repaired, exhibited at AOPA and back flying.
> Initial reports of the two latest deployments indicate minor to moderate
damage
> to the airframe. Even if the airframe is not repairable, there should be a
high
> salvage return on the avionics ,engine, interior & other undamaged parts.
>
> I think the highest cost to an insurance company is medical/death
payments,.not
> hull repair. Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and
thus
> pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.
>

Yep, I agree with that. I remember several years ago when I went to purchase
my first Mercedes. I was concerned that because the car was $80k, the
insurance premiums would be considerably above what I had paid on other
cars. I mentioned this to the dealer, and he told me that the insurance
rates would be equal to or less than any other car I would buy because the
Mercedes was so safe. The insurance companies don't care much about having
to repair or even total out a car, regardless of it's cost, because the real
expense for them is with injury and death settlements. An $80k car is
nothing compared to a million-dollar injury/death situation, and they would
rather insure an expensive but safe car than a cheap but potentially
dangerous one. As it turns out, the dealer was right, and my insurance
quotes were between 10% and 20% less than what I was paying for my previous
car.

I would imagine that the Cirrus would be along the same lines. If anything,
insurance costs for these planes should wind up well below average, as the
injury/death statistics begin to accumulate in their favor. Totaling or
fixing a hull, even on an expensive plane, is nothing compared to having to
fix a person.

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 01:47 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> airframe wouldn't have been a total loss. Generally, when the BRS is
> deployed, the net loss to an insurance company should be LESS, not more,

It depends how it is deployed. Suppose a Cirrus pilot panicks in VFR on top
of an overcast an pulls the chute when he could have done a successful ASR
approach or VFR weather were within range?

> Add to that the savings in medical expenses or death liability, and I
can't
> imagine that having a BRS installed would ever wind up creating an
airplane
> that's not a viable insurance risk.

Hull insurance is more expensive than liability insurance for a Cirrus (and
just about all airplanes worth $150K+), so I do not think the medical
expenses or death liability are much of a factor.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 01:51 AM

"ISLIP" > wrote in message
...

> I think the highest cost to an insurance company is medical/death
payments,.not
> hull repair. Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and
thus
> pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.

Liability insurance rates (which pay medical/death payments) do not rise all
that much as airplane values rise.

Hull values rise substantially as airplane values rise.

For airplanes in the economic class as a Cirrus, hull insurance almost
certainly costs more than liability insurance.

For a commercial insurance policy on my P210, full in-motion and
not-in-motion hull insurance costs 4 times the price of liability
insurance -- that is no exaggeration.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Peter Duniho

April 12th 04, 02:41 AM

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> It depends how it is deployed. Suppose a Cirrus pilot panicks in VFR on
top
> of an overcast an pulls the chute when he could have done a successful ASR
> approach or VFR weather were within range?

What's that got to do with anything? Until you demonstrate that a
significant number of deployments will fall into that category, it's
irrelevant. A simple possibility is insufficient.

Furthermore, your example is pretty odd too. A pilot who is qualified to
fly an ASR approach is unlikely to use the parachute, and one who is
unqualified to is better off using the parachute. Similarly, if VFR weather
is within range, and the pilot knows about it, I can't imagine he'd use the
parachute; conversely, if he doesn't know about it, it doesn't matter WHERE
the VFR weather is.

The presence or absence of a parachute is completely irrelevant to your
examples, even if one acknowledges a pilot might use the BRS in a situation
where damage to the airframe could have been avoided.

> Hull insurance is more expensive than liability insurance for a Cirrus
(and
> just about all airplanes worth $150K+), so I do not think the medical
> expenses or death liability are much of a factor.

Again, you are ignoring statistics, and looking only at single incidents.
The reason that liability insurance is less expensive is not that the
payouts are smaller. It's that they are less frequent. More importantly,
the BRS is likely to only be used when medical or death payouts are nearly
guaranteed, and in those situations, I assure the insurance company would
rather pay for the airframe.

Pete

Peter Duniho

April 12th 04, 02:45 AM

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Liability insurance rates (which pay medical/death payments) do not rise
all
> that much as airplane values rise.

That's because the liability exposure has more to do with how many people
the airplane carries, and how much OTHER people's airplanes and other
property costs than it does with how much the insured airplane costs.

So what?

> Hull values rise substantially as airplane values rise.

So what?

> For airplanes in the economic class as a Cirrus, hull insurance almost
> certainly costs more than liability insurance.

So what?

> For a commercial insurance policy on my P210, full in-motion and
> not-in-motion hull insurance costs 4 times the price of liability
> insurance -- that is no exaggeration.

So what? None of the things you've mentioned have anything to do with how
the installation of a BRS would affect the economics of insurance a
particular airplane.

Pete

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 02:49 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> Furthermore, your example is pretty odd too. A pilot who is qualified to
> fly an ASR approach is unlikely to use the parachute, and one who is
> unqualified to is better off using the parachute. Similarly, if VFR
weather
> is within range, and the pilot knows about it, I can't imagine he'd use
the
> parachute; conversely, if he doesn't know about it, it doesn't matter
WHERE
> the VFR weather is.

I think we probably agree on when the parachute SHOULD be used. It is
indeed unknown if that is when it WILL generally be used in practice. It is
possible -- though by no means a fact -- that the Cirrus could attract a
certain demographic of pilot experience and mission profile which will lead
to "false" deployments of the chute in a situation which could be handled
conventionally.

It will be interesting to see the details as information on these accidents
become clear. Purely on a statistical basis, the odds seem likely to me
that 2 airplanes out of a fleet of 1,000 could develop unsolvable doomsday
scenarios requiring chute deployment on the same weekend -- but I cannot say
there is any real basis to that than gut feeling. We need to wait for the
details.

> payouts are smaller. It's that they are less frequent. More importantly,
> the BRS is likely to only be used when medical or death payouts are nearly
> guaranteed, and in those situations, I assure the insurance company would
> rather pay for the airframe.

You are correct that the parachute SHOULD only be used in those situations;
whether that turns out to be so in practice is unknown at present.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

ISLIP

April 12th 04, 02:50 AM

>Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and
>thus
>> pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.
>
>Liability insurance rates (which pay medical/death payments) do not rise all
>that much as airplane values rise.
>
>Hull values rise substantially as airplane values rise.
>
>For airplanes in the economic class as a Cirrus, hull insurance almost
>certainly costs more than liability insurance.
>
>For a commercial insurance policy on my P210, full in-motion and
>not-in-motion hull insurance costs 4 times the price of liability
>insurance -- that is no exaggeration.
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

>www.flyimc.com
>
>
>

Agreed Richard. All one has to do is check the hull premiums on a Pilatus or
Lear to see that. Higher value, higher premium. The bigger COST to the
insurance company remains medical/death payouts

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear earlier. What I was trying to convey was
that high insurance premiums are not specific to Cirrus - they are common to
all insured high value items.
Whether insurance companies will look at lives saved by the BRS patrachutes on
Cirrus & some retrofitted Cessnas & thus lowver the total premium, remains to
be seen

John

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 02:58 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> So what? None of the things you've mentioned have anything to do with how
> the installation of a BRS would affect the economics of insurance a
> particular airplane.

What I am saying is that before this weekend, the accident rate for the
Cirrus was already higher than expected in comparison to airplanes with
similar missions -- there was a good article about this recently in Aviation
Consumer. Now that there have been 2 more accidents in a fleet of only
1,000 we can be sure the underwriters will seriously take a look at the
numbers again and will not be likely to consider the statistics to be an
abberation.

Suppose it were the case that no one is injured in any BRS accidents but a
trend is noticed that pilots with a BRS tend to be conservative and pull the
chute in situations felt after-the-fact to be recoverable. In that case,
liability rates for a Cirrus might go down but hull rates could go up. If
hull insurance already costs more than liability for a Cirrus-class airplane
and liability insurance cannot go down to zero, the net effet of increased
hull insurance and some decrease in liability could well mean a substantial
increase in insurance costs for Cirrus owners.

Again, I certainly do not know for sure that this will occur... it is a
plausible scenario, though, based on the existing accident record of the
Cirrus. Only time will say for sure how this turns out.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Dave Katz

April 12th 04, 03:43 AM

"Richard Kaplan" > writes:

> I think we probably agree on when the parachute SHOULD be used. It is
> indeed unknown if that is when it WILL generally be used in practice. It is
> possible -- though by no means a fact -- that the Cirrus could attract a
> certain demographic of pilot experience and mission profile which will lead
> to "false" deployments of the chute in a situation which could be handled
> conventionally.

As far as we can tell, this has not been the case thusfar. With 1000+
planes in the air and several hundred thousand hours of time on the
fleet, there's no sign of this theoretical demographic. I suppose
something could shift radically such that this demographic suddenly
appears, and in sufficient numbers to skew the statistics, but at this
point experience has not borne out these fears.

>
> It will be interesting to see the details as information on these accidents
> become clear. Purely on a statistical basis, the odds seem likely to me
> that 2 airplanes out of a fleet of 1,000 could develop unsolvable doomsday
> scenarios requiring chute deployment on the same weekend -- but I cannot say
> there is any real basis to that than gut feeling. We need to wait for the
> details.

I'm guessing that you really meant that the odds seem *unlikely.*

Keep in mind that one person's situation that can be "handled
conventionally" can well be another person's "unsolvable doomsday
scenario." There was much armchair test pilot chatter about Lionel
Morrison's deployment following an aileron coming partway off; "*I*
would have tried to land it" and all that rot. Maybe someone could
have; maybe at landing speeds it would become uncontrollable and it
would have ended up in a smoking crater. Seems like he did the right
thing.

The Canadian pilot said that he got into a spin and couldn't recover.
The POH says to pull the handle. Perhaps a high-time pilot trained in
spins could have recovered conventionally, but it sounds like he did
not fit that profile. Seems like he did the right thing.

The Kentucky pilot that attempted to pull the chute (which didn't
deploy, resulting in an AD that appears to have had the desired
effect) got into unusual attitudes in IMC after an apparent gyro
failure with the autopilot engaged. Normally the NTSB reports in such
cases end with "witnesses observed the aircraft emerge from the clouds
in a steep nose-down attitude." I don't think there's too much
argument that pulling the handle is the wrong thing to do in such a
case, though he did manage to recover and put it down in a field (and
he was very lucky that there was enough VMC to get right side up again
and suitable terrain to land.)

The details of the Florida case are yet to be revealed, though another
high-time Cirrus pilot who talked to the high-time Cirrus pilot that
pulled the handle felt that there was "no doubt in his mind" that he
had "done the right thing at the right time."

Bottom line is that you don't get to back up in life and try another
choice and compare how things come out. You make your choice and stuff
happens. Making a choice that results in your walking away uninjured
is pretty hard to argue with when the alternative must remain unknown.

Certainly there is ample evidence that there are a lot of pilots out
there with lousy judgement; IMHO the consequential damage of a poorly
chosen parachute pull is likely to be a lot lower than a lot of other
bad choices.

Dave Katz

April 12th 04, 03:59 AM

"Richard Kaplan" > writes:

> Suppose it were the case that no one is injured in any BRS accidents but a
> trend is noticed that pilots with a BRS tend to be conservative and pull the
> chute in situations felt after-the-fact to be recoverable. In that case,
> liability rates for a Cirrus might go down but hull rates could go up. If

Keep in mind that, on pretty much a daily basis, pilots (and
passengers) die in situations that feel "after-the-fact to be
recoverable." This underscores the fact that just because *you* feel
a situation is recoverable clearly does not mean that the pilot in
that plane could have recovered.

Happily, the insurance market is at least *somewhat* competitive, and
the Cirrus market has great promise (as well as risk) due to the fact
that Cirrus will build more planes this year than anybody.
Underwriters are sensitive to dollar losses and ultimately will price
premiums to accommodate their payouts. If there are a lot of dollars
paid on Cirri claims, the premiums will go up. If not, competition
will bring the prices down. It is generally the case that the
underwriters don't really care *why* they have to pay (short of
egregious or illegal behavior) but only care how much and how large
the premium pool is to cover the losses.

As a Cirrus owner I've seen my insurance premiums drop by 50% and then
go up by 80% (two fatal accidents in five days last year pretty much
tapped out the pool.) It's cyclic; they get scared when there are
losses to pay, and then undercut each other on premiums when things
quiet down. As the fleet grows, the depth of the cycles flattens out.

I think we can safely say that Cirrus premiums *will* go up and they
also *will* go down. It's not static by any means.

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 05:03 AM

"Dave Katz" > wrote in message
...
> As far as we can tell, this has not been the case thusfar. With 1000+
> planes in the air and several hundred thousand hours of time on the
> fleet, there's no sign of this theoretical demographic. I suppose

Well, we do know that SOMETHING seems amiss in the accident statistics of
the Cirrus. There was a recent article in Aviation Safety which made this
clear by comparing accident rates of various airplanes.

> The Kentucky pilot that attempted to pull the chute (which didn't
> deploy, resulting in an AD that appears to have had the desired
> effect) got into unusual attitudes in IMC after an apparent gyro
> failure with the autopilot engaged. Normally the NTSB reports in such

Do you not think unusual attitude recovery ought to be within the capability
of an instrument pilot?
If we recommend that Cirrus pilots pull the chute whenever a gyro fails in
IMC, there will be an awful lot more parachute pulls as their vacuum systems
start aging. Perhaps a backup electric AI would be helpful on the original
steam-gauge Cirrus models.

> The details of the Florida case are yet to be revealed, though another
> high-time Cirrus pilot who talked to the high-time Cirrus pilot that

I agree it will be very interesting to see the details.

> Bottom line is that you don't get to back up in life and try another
> choice and compare how things come out. You make your choice and stuff
> happens. Making a choice that results in your walking away uninjured
> is pretty hard to argue with when the alternative must remain unknown.

I agree here. In fact, purely from the perspective of minimizing injuries
the chute should probably be pulled if the thought comes to the pilots mind
and he starts to debate himself. I agree that approach would make the
Cirrus quite safe -- the economics of insuring such an airplane are the
question though, and I guess we just have to wait to see how the statistics
work out. So far insuring a Cirrus seems to be a good bit more expensive
than one might have initially thought for an airplane designed with safety
first.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 05:06 AM

"ISLIP" > wrote in message
...

> Perhaps I didn't make myself clear earlier. What I was trying to convey
was
> that high insurance premiums are not specific to Cirrus - they are common
to
> all insured high value items.

How do Cirrus insurance premiums compare to other retractables with the same
declared hull value?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

TaxSrv

April 12th 04, 05:17 AM

"Dave Katz" wrote:
> ....With 1000+
> planes in the air and several hundred thousand hours of time on the
> fleet, there's no sign of this theoretical demographic. I suppose
> something could shift radically such that this demographic suddenly
> appears, and in sufficient numbers to skew the statistics,
> ....

From what do you get demographic? Anyway, my crude method: FAA
registration records indicate the vast majority of the approx. 1,000
are corporate-owned, and many names suggest more than just holding
companies. That suggests significant % are business use, and many of
those owned by holding co's may be substantially biz too. The latest
Nall Report cites biz use as about 4 times safer than GA as a whole,
which tends to suggest the accident rate may be on the high side. The
average age of the fleet is about 2 yrs, so several hundred thousand
hours could be a bit high, and with 18 U.S. accidents, the rate thus
appears typical only for GA as a whole.

Fred F.

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 05:37 AM

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...

> From what do you get demographic? Anyway, my crude method: FAA
> registration records indicate the vast majority of the approx. 1,000
> are corporate-owned, and many names suggest more than just holding

Take a look at Aviation Safety March 2004. The Cirrus SR20 fatal accident
rate per 100,000 hours is 3.91 and the SR22 rate is 1.34. This contrasts
with rates for the Cessna 182S of 1.09, Diamond DA20 of 0.28, Diamond DA40
of 0.00, and Lancair LC-40 of 0.00

Total accidents of the SR22 were 6 in 150,000 hours vs. the Diamond DA20
with 5 in 361,000 hours and the C182S with 30 in 645,000 hours.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.

April 12th 04, 07:54 AM

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "ISLIP" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Perhaps I didn't make myself clear earlier. What I was trying to convey
> was
> > that high insurance premiums are not specific to Cirrus - they are
common
> to
> > all insured high value items.
>
> How do Cirrus insurance premiums compare to other retractables with the
same
> declared hull value?
>

All Cirrus are actually fixed-gear.

tony roberts

April 12th 04, 08:29 AM

And another one -

http://www.mysouthernalberta.com/leth/front_page.php

So what's the deal? Are these chutes really good, or are Cirrus crashing
more than most?
If you google search this one, the pilot claims that the crash was due
to uneven fuel consumption - In 135 miles? He left Kelowna which is my
home field. No way would uneven fuel at Nakusp cause a spin. I fly from
Kelowna to Nakusp on left tank only in my 172H.

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

Thomas Borchert

April 12th 04, 10:02 AM

Richard,

> Well, perhaps they are paying off with no injuries, but keep in mind that
> hull insurance is much more expensive than liability insurance and keep in
> mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
> airframes.
>

Uhm, you think it would help insurance rates if these people were dead and
the planes totalled? Sorry, can't follow your logic.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 12th 04, 10:02 AM

Richard,

> You are correct that the parachute SHOULD only be used in those situations;
> whether that turns out to be so in practice is unknown at present.
>

I don't understand this. We're talking about a life-saving device, people
start using it and some here actually suggest those pilots weren't macho
enough to try to get out of their emergency without being a sissy and pulling
the chute? This is unbelievable. "Real men don't use chutes"? What BS!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 12th 04, 10:02 AM

Tony,

> There is a lot more to this than meets the eye
>

which is the reason why professional accident investigation doesn't
happen on internet newsgroups.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Cub Driver

April 12th 04, 10:56 AM

>That depends on how many pilots get trigger happy about pulling the
>'chute in otherwise recoverable situations.

This will certainly happen. (And in fact would probably be the right
decision: why risk a dead-stick landing in a field that may be full of
rocks or gopher holes or worse, when you can float down instead?)

The criminal justice system has found that "electronic handcuffs",
which confine an individual to house arrest, and which were supposed
to cut down on the prison population, did no such thing. Instead,
judges began sentencing folks to house arrest instead of putting them
on probation.

That's the problem with softer alternatives: they're apt to increase
the wrong side of the equation. In this case, increasing cracked-up
planes rather than decreasing fatal crashes.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

April 12th 04, 11:01 AM

>The insurance companies don't care much about having
>to repair or even total out a car, regardless of it's cost,

Not the case in New Hampshire. I pay two bills, one for liability and
one for collision (and others for comprehensive, etc., but never
mind).

The liabilty is pretty standard across automobiles. The collision
varies hugely, by accident rate, cost to purchase and repair, and
especially by the drivers it is likely to attract. What you say may be
true of Mercedes--most models are staid middle-aged professional
cars--but that's because of their styling, not their cost.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 12:55 PM

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...

> All Cirrus are actually fixed-gear.

Oops... slipped there... I should say compared to other "comparable
aircraft." It was in this thinking mode because it is hard to come up with
another example of a fix-gear single which insurers treat with strict
undewriting requirements.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 12:58 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> I don't understand this. We're talking about a life-saving device, people
> start using it and some here actually suggest those pilots weren't macho
> enough to try to get out of their emergency without being a sissy and
pulling
> the chute? This is unbelievable. "Real men don't use chutes"? What BS!

Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
They would be life-saving, too.

The problem is coming to a happy medium. If the chute were to be pulled in
ANY emergency then the airplane would become impractical because there would
be too many damaged airframes, albeit no injuries. The question is WHERE
does one draw the line at when to pull the chute? There are some agreed-upon
situations but also some grey areas.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Nathan Young

April 12th 04, 01:18 PM

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:37:34 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
>
>> From what do you get demographic? Anyway, my crude method: FAA
>> registration records indicate the vast majority of the approx. 1,000
>> are corporate-owned, and many names suggest more than just holding
>
>Take a look at Aviation Safety March 2004. The Cirrus SR20 fatal accident
>rate per 100,000 hours is 3.91 and the SR22 rate is 1.34. This contrasts
>with rates for the Cessna 182S of 1.09, Diamond DA20 of 0.28, Diamond DA40
>of 0.00, and Lancair LC-40 of 0.00
>
>Total accidents of the SR22 were 6 in 150,000 hours vs. the Diamond DA20
>with 5 in 361,000 hours and the C182S with 30 in 645,000 hours.

3 comments on these statistics...

At this point, the Cirrus fleet is still pretty young - a single
accident can probably skew those numbers pretty badly.

From a performance standpoint, I think the Cirrus is more comparable
to a BE35 than a C182. I wonder how it it compares in the accident
numbers?

Last, it would be interesting to see a plot of accidents against time
for several aircraft types. I suspect that most new types have an
'impulse' of accidents when first introduced, and then level off to
some lower steady state. I suspect this for a few reasons:
Airframe/engine bugs may not be worked out (this is especially true in
homebuilts), and lack of proper training for the aircraft, plus there
will always be a number of pilots who want the latest/greatest thing,
and purchase a plane they shouldn't be flying.

-Nathan

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 05:17 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> Uhm, you think it would help insurance rates if these people were dead and
> the planes totalled? Sorry, can't follow your logic.

I do not think anyone has any clear answer on what the long-term track
record of the Cirrus will be from either an economic or a safety
perspective -- this is all open for discussion and there will no doubt be
many viewpoints around for quite some time.

If the parachute is used in situations which would have caused serious or
fatal injury without the parachute, then of course it will turn out to be a
terrific device long-term.

On the other hand, if it turns out that the parachute is used often in
situations which may well have been recoverable with no airplane damage and
no injury, then the increased cost to insure the Cirrus could become
impractical.

The question really comes down to how often will the BRS be engaged in
situations which were doomsday scenarios vs. how often will it be engaged in
situations which are typically recoverable in a conventional airplane. No
one know the answer to this yet -- not you, not me, not anyone. It will be
worthwhile to observe and see how the statistics bear out.

Unfortunately, the initial Cirrus statistics show a much higher accident and
fatality rate for the Cirrus vs. competing airplanes -- no one knows for
sure yet if this is a function of the airplane, the pilots, the mission
profiles the airplane is used for, or whatever other reason. Again, no one
knows for sure... but it is very worthwhile to keep an eye on this and see
how the long-term statistics turn out.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 05:23 PM

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...>

> Last, it would be interesting to see a plot of accidents against time
> for several aircraft types. I suspect that most new types have an
> 'impulse' of accidents when first introduced, and then level off to
> some lower steady state. I suspect this for a few reasons:
> Airframe/engine bugs may not be worked out (this is especially true in
> homebuilts), and lack of proper training for the aircraft, plus there
> will always be a number of pilots who want the latest/greatest thing,
> and purchase a plane they shouldn't be flying.

I think those are all excellent points. The only thing we can really
conclude is that (1) It is too early to tell for sure what the long-term
safety record of the Cirrus will be; and (2) It is not a certainty that
Cirrus' safety improvements, including the BRS, will reduce the accident
rate. We just have to wait and see.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

BllFs6

April 12th 04, 05:57 PM

This reminds of a tv show about car safety and safety in general I saw once...

One expert noted that as we made cars quiter, with airbags, antilock brakes,
better handling, etc etc drivers tended to use up much of those safety gains by
becoming more aggressive drivers...because all those things made a car "feel"
safer and therefore people pushed the envelope farther.....

And he observed that probably the best thing one could do to improve car safety
would be to put a big metal spike sticking outa the steering wheel pointed
towards the driver :)

A safety device does NO good if you count on it to always work and use it as an
excuse to do things you wouldnt do if you didnt have it in the first place....

take care

Blll

Thomas Borchert

April 12th 04, 06:53 PM

BllFs6,

> One expert noted that as we made cars quiter, with airbags, antilock brakes,
> better handling, etc etc drivers tended to use up much of those safety gains by
> becoming more aggressive drivers...because all those things made a car "feel"
> safer and therefore people pushed the envelope farther.....
>

Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not supported
by the numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

David Reinhart

April 12th 04, 11:08 PM

It's my understanding that ejection seats aren't allowed on civil aircraft
because the pyrotechnics used are illegal for civillians to own. They're
considered controlled military munitions.

Dave Reinhart

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I don't understand this. We're talking about a life-saving device, people
> > start using it and some here actually suggest those pilots weren't macho
> > enough to try to get out of their emergency without being a sissy and
> pulling
> > the chute? This is unbelievable. "Real men don't use chutes"? What BS!
>
> Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
> They would be life-saving, too.
>
> The problem is coming to a happy medium. If the chute were to be pulled in
> ANY emergency then the airplane would become impractical because there would
> be too many damaged airframes, albeit no injuries. The question is WHERE
> does one draw the line at when to pull the chute? There are some agreed-upon
> situations but also some grey areas.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

Richard Kaplan

April 12th 04, 11:14 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
> improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not
supported
> by the numbers.

Reductions in GA accident rates largely came about in the decades before the
1960s/70s vintage airplanes most of us now fly.

NTSB statistics and the general aviation media clearly show that by far the
majority of current GA accidents are due to pilot error and that only a
small portion are due to mechanical failure. Thus it remains to be
demonstrated whether further reduction in the GA accident rate would be best
done via additional equipment such as a BRS parachute vs. pilot training.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Dave Stadt

April 12th 04, 11:26 PM

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
>
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
> > improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not
> supported
> > by the numbers.
>
> Reductions in GA accident rates largely came about in the decades before
the
> 1960s/70s vintage airplanes most of us now fly.
>
> NTSB statistics and the general aviation media clearly show that by far
the
> majority of current GA accidents are due to pilot error and that only a
> small portion are due to mechanical failure. Thus it remains to be
> demonstrated whether further reduction in the GA accident rate would be
best
> done via additional equipment such as a BRS parachute vs. pilot training.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

It would be interesting if someone would determine how many GA fatal
accidents could be saved if all planes were BRS equipped. My guess is it
would be a very small percentage.

Traffic fatalities have been in the 40,000+ range since the 1940s. Many
more automobiles and many more miles driven but at the end of the year the
number of dead people has been the same for over 50 years.

Tom Sixkiller

April 12th 04, 11:41 PM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:_HEec.1395.
>
> Traffic fatalities have been in the 40,000+ range since the 1940s. Many
> more automobiles and many more miles driven but at the end of the year the
> number of dead people has been the same for over 50 years.

Actually, TF's peaked in the 1980's at about 52,000 (??) and are now down to
the low 40K's.

Michael

April 13th 04, 12:21 AM

Thomas Borchert > wrote
> Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
> improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not supported
> by the numbers.

Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
dramatically; accident rates are actually up.

Technology has indeed made cars safer; it has also made them more
expensive in constant dollars.

Michael

TaxSrv

April 13th 04, 01:34 AM

Michael wrote:
> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>
>>Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with
technical
>>improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply
not supported
>>by the numbers.
>
> Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
> dramatically; accident rates are actually up.

One sample State of Florida says it is true. Between 1978-1998,
licensed drivers doubled, vehicle miles doubled, small increase in
roads. But total crashes actually decreased about 1/3, with small
increase in total deaths. Complete charts at:
www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/sourcebook/SourceBook.pdf

Fred F.

Dave Stadt

April 13th 04, 04:36 AM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:_HEec.1395.
> >
> > Traffic fatalities have been in the 40,000+ range since the 1940s. Many
> > more automobiles and many more miles driven but at the end of the year
the
> > number of dead people has been the same for over 50 years.
>
> Actually, TF's peaked in the 1980's at about 52,000 (??) and are now down
to
> the low 40K's.

Actually, far as I know 52,000 is 40,000+.

Ron Lee

April 13th 04, 05:17 AM

The problem with the report I read is that the cause of the "out of
control" situation was not apparent. Was it a gust of wind?
Turbulence? Pilot error? Did a wing fall off?

If someone uses a parachute to save a plane when the mixture was
pulled out or a tank ran dry, then the parachute is a crutch for pilot
error.

Get the facts on this incident and we can discuss it better.

Ron Lee

>
>> You are correct that the parachute SHOULD only be used in those situations;
>> whether that turns out to be so in practice is unknown at present.
>>
>
>I don't understand this. We're talking about a life-saving device, people
>start using it and some here actually suggest those pilots weren't macho
>enough to try to get out of their emergency without being a sissy and pulling
>the chute? This is unbelievable. "Real men don't use chutes"? What BS!
>
>--
>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Tom Sixkiller

April 13th 04, 05:26 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:_HEec.1395.
> > >
> > > Traffic fatalities have been in the 40,000+ range since the 1940s.
Many
> > > more automobiles and many more miles driven but at the end of the year
> the
> > > number of dead people has been the same for over 50 years.
> >
> > Actually, TF's peaked in the 1980's at about 52,000 (??) and are now
down
> to
> > the low 40K's.
>
>
> Actually, far as I know 52,000 is 40,000+.

True..but you also said "but at the end of the year the number of dead
people has been the same for over 50 years". So, yes...but the pattern is
what we're taking here, aren't we? Or are we just playing "Fun with
Numbers"?

Tom Sixkiller

April 13th 04, 05:35 AM

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote
> > Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
> > improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not
supported
> > by the numbers.
>
> Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
> dramatically; accident rates are actually up.

Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.

>
> Technology has indeed made cars safer; it has also made them more
> expensive in constant dollars.

As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology should
make them _cheaper_.

I'd say "crowded cities" is the biggest factor, or at least one of the
biggest. Add to all that the fact that there is far more widespread drivers
training, crackdowns on DUI, better road design and paving...those will
pare the rates.

OTOH, way back years ago (the late 70's or early 80's) a school of Highway
Engineering (U of Houston rings a bell) announced that bad traffic controls
were a major factor in a very high percentage of accidents. Something like
2/3rds.

When was the last time you ever hit more than two green lights in a row?

Tom Sixkiller

April 13th 04, 05:44 AM

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> The problem with the report I read is that the cause of the "out of
> control" situation was not apparent. Was it a gust of wind?
> Turbulence? Pilot error? Did a wing fall off?
>
> If someone uses a parachute to save a plane when the mixture was
> pulled out or a tank ran dry, then the parachute is a crutch for pilot
> error.

A crutch (or a safety net) that leads to complacency and inordinante
risk-taking.

Mary Shafer

April 13th 04, 06:27 AM

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:08:04 GMT, David Reinhart
> wrote:

> It's my understanding that ejection seats aren't allowed on civil aircraft
> because the pyrotechnics used are illegal for civillians to own. They're
> considered controlled military munitions.

Can the fact that ejection seats weigh something like 600 lb each have
anything to do with their not being used in GA aircraft?

Privately owned aircraft can have working ejection seats, though.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Thomas Borchert

April 13th 04, 10:00 AM

Michael,

> Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
> dramatically; accident rates are actually up.
>

Huh? You're saying there are more fatalities per miles driven, persons
transported, cars in the system or whatever other meaningful rate you
like to chose? It ain't so.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

April 13th 04, 10:00 AM

Tom,

> A crutch (or a safety net) that leads to complacency and inordinante
> risk-taking.
>

And I'm sure this bold statement can be supported by the numbers, can
it?

Jeeze, what is it with pilots and change? Anything new in GA is
bad-mouthed here - while at the same time everybody and his brother
complains about the old technology we have to use. You can't have it
both ways.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Aviv Hod

April 13th 04, 01:01 PM

>
> When was the last time you ever hit more than two green lights in a row?

I don't know how common this is in other places, but when I learned to drive
in downtown Des Moines, Iowa, where the speed limit is the standard 20 miles
per hour business district limit, you can go through all of downtown
(guessing 6 to 10 lights) with a green light, by going exactly 18 miles per
hour. I always thought it was pretty cool, and pretty funny how people that
didn't know about this would accelerate as hard as they could at each green
light, go well over the speed limit, only to get to a red light at the next
intersection and lose all their efforts at going faster by waiting at the
light. They made their own stop and go traffic instead of riding the green
light "wave"...

-Aviv Hod

Ron Lee

April 13th 04, 01:52 PM

Thomas, I love GPS. No way will VOR navigation be my primary method.
But let's get the facts about this parachute deployment and assess
whether it really saved four people from an otherwise certain
death...or was just a crutch for pilot error.

Ron Lee

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>Jeeze, what is it with pilots and change? Anything new in GA is
>bad-mouthed here - while at the same time everybody and his brother
>complains about the old technology we have to use. You can't have it
>both ways.
>
>--
>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Richard Kaplan

April 13th 04, 02:10 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> Jeeze, what is it with pilots and change? Anything new in GA is
> bad-mouthed here - while at the same time everybody and his brother

No, "new" things are not bad-mouthed here; they are simply analyzed
critically, as they should be.

Technology is not "bad" just because it is "old".

Neither is technology "better" just because it is "new."

Analysis of the facts is helpful in all situations.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Michael

April 13th 04, 02:23 PM

Thomas Borchert > wrote
> > Actually, that's not true at all. FATALITY rates have improved
> > dramatically; accident rates are actually up.
>
> Huh? You're saying there are more fatalities per miles driven, persons
> transported, cars in the system or whatever other meaningful rate you
> like to chose? It ain't so.

It ain't so, and it's not what I'm saying at all. Fatalities are down
by any meaningful measure (of course total fatalities are up, but
that's just because there are so many more cars and drivers on the
road). Accident rates are up. Collision insurance rates are up in
real dollars. We're having more accidents than ever, but a far
smaller fraction of them are fatal.

Reasons? Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, impact-attenuating
crash barriers, etc. Those things work, because they don't do
anything to prevent accidents but simply make them more survivable.
Insurance companies won't give you a break for ABS anymore - they've
discovered that drivers who have ABS and know it simply drive more
agressively.

Michael

G.R. Patterson III

April 13th 04, 02:36 PM

Aviv Hod wrote:
>
> I don't know how common this is in other places, but when I learned to drive
> in downtown Des Moines, Iowa, where the speed limit is the standard 20 miles
> per hour business district limit, you can go through all of downtown
> (guessing 6 to 10 lights) with a green light, by going exactly 18 miles per
> hour.

In 1970, there was a strip of highway in Greenville, SC that was like this. In one
direction, you could travel five miles or more without a red light if you held to
within about 2 mph either way of the speed limit. In the other direction, you'd catch
exactly one red light doing this.

By contrast, there's a strip of highway in Pennsylvania on which the State posted a
speed limit around 55 mph. The local traffic director wanted 25 mph and got
overruled, so he set the lights to all go red for anyone traveling faster than 25
mph.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

Richard Kaplan

April 13th 04, 03:56 PM

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> road). Accident rates are up. Collision insurance rates are up in
> real dollars. We're having more accidents than ever, but a far
> smaller fraction of them are fatal.

And this might turn out to be exactly what happens in the Cirrus fleet, too.
(Right now they have both more fatals and more total accidents, but it is
too early to know for sure if the fatals are truly a trend or a statistical
blip.)

If it does happen, it will be a good thing for aviation safety. However,
aviation hull insurance costs a good bit more than automobile collision
insurance. Up to a point, it will thus be a net very positive outcome if
the Cirrus fleet has higer insurance costs and more total accidents but less
fatal accidents over the long-term. At a certain point, though, the hull
insurance cost could become unrealistic, particularly considering the fact
that most fatal GA accidents remain due to pilot error rather than
mechanical problems. We have to see how all the numbers and dollars turn
out over the next few years.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Thomas Borchert

April 13th 04, 03:56 PM

Ron,

> But let's get the facts about this parachute deployment and assess
> whether it really saved four people from an otherwise certain
> death...or was just a crutch for pilot error.
>

I agree. And there's a high likelyhood for the latter. The question is:
Does that make the chute a bad thing? That's where I say: Not at all.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dylan Smith

April 13th 04, 04:01 PM

In article >, ISLIP wrote:
> Agreed Richard. All one has to do is check the hull premiums on a Pilatus or
> Lear to see that. Higher value, higher premium. The bigger COST to the
> insurance company remains medical/death payouts

Not only does a Lear hold more people than say, a C140, and costs a lot
more, when it crashes lots more stuff (and people) are likely to get
broken.

It didn't really surprise me when looking at NTSB reports, trying to
find out how people crashed C140s, so I didn't do something similar and
crash mine after I bought it was that there were so few injury
accidents. If you crash slowly, you're less likely to be hurt. Crash in
a Lear and for many types of crashes, you'll probably kill or seriously
injure everyone on board. This makes the 'fixing people' bit rather more
expensive.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

ISLIP

April 13th 04, 05:22 PM

>But let's get the facts about this parachute deployment and assess
>whether it really saved four people from an otherwise certain
>death...or was just a crutch for pilot error.

In WWI the British forbid the use of parachutes in military aircraft because
they thought the pilot would be more likely to use the chute than make the
effort to bring a damaged aircraft back to the field. A lot of needless deaths
occured because of the stupidity of a few people.
I suspect the same reluctance to progress is at work here. One can speculate
that of the previous fatal VFR to IMC Cirrus accidents, lives MAY have been
saved if the chute had been deployed. Skip the arguement that Cirrus chute
didn't deploy - that now seems to be corrected as evidenced by the last 3
deployments.
There's a lot of NTSB reports of fatal accidents reports in which the
availability of a working chute probably would have been very appreciated by
the now deceased occupants.

John

Bill Denton

April 13th 04, 05:26 PM

NOTE: I'm working from memory of some things I read about three years ago.
If I have any errors or omissions please post a correction.

There are two major problems with the Cirrus BRS system at this point:
training and human nature.

In many areas of life, including flight training, we are taught two major
aspects of problem resolution. The first is to identify the problem by using
one or more checklists (written or mental) to determine the precise nature
of the problem. The second is to determine the corrective action, again by
using one or more mental or written checklists. Obviously, if you lose a
wing in flight problem identification is quick, and problem resolution is
limited to one option (prayer). But by and large we use the step-by-step
problem solving techniques we have been taught. That's the training issue.

On the human nature side, we are (by and large) thinking creatures, not just
robots. And our decision making process is often influenced by factors
outside of our training. If you are flying a GA aircraft that you personally
own, in the back of your mind will be the $100,000 or way up you have sunk
in the aircraft. And all too often, in the event of a serious problem, the
end result, if the problem is not corrected, is a broken airplane on the
ground with you in it. So, when your airplane has a problem, these kinds of
factors will be in at least the back of your mind. Any time we are presented
with a problem, human nature drives us to keep trying to find a solution.
And when flying an aircraft, you are even more driven by the unpleasantness
of the possible consequences of not solving the problem.

We have see up the background, now let's look at how this applies to the
Cirrus BRS.

The key factors are the short threshold time, and the narrrow window. In the
Cirrus, when you are presented with certain types of problems, you only have
a short period of time before the chute must be deployed, and a short window
after that when the chute will still be effective. If you delay deployment,
the BRS will not be able to save the aircraft. Let me give you an analogy,
which may or may not be fully accurate, but which will illustrate the point:

Consider a pilot in a jet fighter on an aircraft carrier. He gives his
"thumbs up", the catapult fires, and he begins his takeoff roll. But just
after he rotates, all engines flame out. The pilot then has two options: a
restart, or an eject. If he ejects, he saves himself, but he loses the
airplane. If he restarts, he and the plane both come out OK. But there's a
problem with the restart option: if it is not begun immediately or if it
takes too long, an eject will not work; the chute will not open.

So the pilot is taught that under this set of circumstances he shouldn't
even consider a restart, he should just eject.

And from what I understand, this is the situation with the Cirrus. If you
are presented with a certain type of problem, you must deploy the BRS right
then. You cannot attempt to solve the problem, because if you do, during the
time you spent trying to solve the problem, you have put the BRS outside of
it's operating window and it will no longer function. And you wouldn't be
able to solve the problem in the first place.

So, a Cirrus puts the pilot outside of the problem-solving methods he has
previously learned. The engine stops. In a typical GA plane you check the
fuel, check the mags, check a few other things and try to the resolve the
issue. In a Cirrus, you only need to determine that the engine has stopped
and deploy the BRS. You don't need to know why the engine stopped or what
must be done to restart it: it's stopped, you pull the handle. Obviously,
the "engine out" example is an exaggeration, but you get my point.

Then to human nature. You're in a gypical GA plane, ou're engine is out, you
are going to attempt everything possible to restart it. Because you are
thinking: "I spent $300,000 on this airplane, I'm not going to let it get
bent". And you also have no other alternative. So, you try this, and you try
than, and you try the other until you either get it fixed or you run out of
sky.

But in a Cirrus, you cannot follow human nature, you have to just say it's
broke, pull the handle. In many instances you will not be able to fix what's
wrong, and if you do spend time trying to fix it you will run outside of the
window where the BRS system will properly and effectively deploy.

So, the Cirrus and the BRS system are not inherently less safe than a
conventional aircraft, but you do have to break some old habits and develop
a good understaning of how the aircraft works. "That's broke, pull the
handle", "that's broke, pull the handle", that has to become your mantra.
Then you'll be OK...

Richard Kaplan

April 13th 04, 05:32 PM

"ISLIP" > wrote in message
...

> I suspect the same reluctance to progress is at work here. One can
speculate
> that of the previous fatal VFR to IMC Cirrus accidents, lives MAY have
been
> saved if the chute had been deployed. Skip the arguement that Cirrus chute

Everyone agrees that a chute is a great idea in case of strutural failure.
Most would agree it is a good idea for engine failure at night or over
mountains. There would likely be debate regarding whether it is a good idea
with an engine failure while VFR/VMC over the midwest. There would likely
be even more debate regarding whether using the BRS is a good idea in a
partial panel situation (noting also that the definition of partial panel
depends on whether this is a PFD airplane or a steam-gauge airplane).

But VFR into IMC is another story. First, given an appropriate weather
briefing this should not occur. Second, if this does occur then the pilot
should have enough emergency training to do a 180 in IMC and turn back to
VFR conditions. Does it make sense to total a perfectly functioning
airplane because the pilot did not know how to continue flying it in the
situation he got into? In fact, is it not possible that the BRS will result
in a landing into power lines or on an interstate highway or somewhere else
which will result in pilot injury, whereas a 180 back to VFR might result
in no injury and no damage?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Capt.Doug

April 13th 04, 05:52 PM

>"Ron Lee" wrote in message > But let's get the facts about this parachute
>deployment and assess
> whether it really saved four people from an otherwise certain
> death...or was just a crutch for pilot error.

There are less than perfect pilots. Some pilots need crutches. Without the
crutch, 4 people likely would have been seriously injured. The plane came
down amongst pine trees. Even if the crutch was for ineptitude, it was still
a good thing.

D.

Richard Kaplan

April 13th 04, 06:44 PM

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...

> There are less than perfect pilots. Some pilots need crutches. Without the
> crutch, 4 people likely would have been seriously injured. The plane came
> down amongst pine trees. Even if the crutch was for ineptitude, it was
still
> a good thing.

What would happen if the BRS set the airplane down on an interstate highway?
On top of power lines? In a lake? Downtown in a highly populated urban
area?

Is it possible under these conditions that injuries could have occurred in a
BRS landing whereas conventionally handling the emergency could result in no
injuries?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

ISLIP

April 13th 04, 08:24 PM

>
>What would happen if the BRS set the airplane down on an interstate highway?
>On top of power lines? In a lake? Downtown in a highly populated urban
>area?
>
>Is it possible under these conditions that injuries could have occurred in a
>BRS landing whereas conventionally handling the emergency could result in no
>injuries?

Richard

It sounds like you are grasping at straw possibly to justify the non available
parachute in your P-210 ( a great a/c BTW)
I would rather take the chance of a less than perfect landing area on an
interstate or lake rather than slamming down on a field with unknown hazards.
Most off field landings are injury free, but too many result in serious injury.
Looking at the relative lack of airframe damage on the 3 successful Cirrus
incidents - (do you call them accidents or precautionary landings ? :.)
)contrasted to the broken heaps of metal normally seen in the newspapers ... I
would opt for the chute.
Think of descent at 15MPH sitting on seats designed to absorb 23G vs a fence
post, rockor tree at 70MPH.RE a lake landing under chute I think the odds are
pretty good that the airframe and occupant might be intact.
My personal fear is departing over a housing development and losing an engine
at low altitude and impacting something solid at 60-80 kt. I've told myself
that I WILL deploy the chute because even it only partially deploys, it will
act as a drogue and reduce the horizontal impact, hopefully, enough to survive.

I own a Cirrus - if you couldn't tell- with a chute, life raft & life vests.
Hopefully I'll never find out if anyone of them work

John

Tom Sixkiller

April 13th 04, 09:54 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> In 1970, there was a strip of highway in Greenville, SC that was like
this. In one
> direction, you could travel five miles or more without a red light if you
held to
> within about 2 mph either way of the speed limit. In the other direction,
you'd catch
> exactly one red light doing this.

Years ago when I first lived in Denver, you could travel down Broadway Ave.
from the North side of town to the south side (several miles...probably from
Colfax to Hampden) and hit maybe one red light (out of two dozen or more) by
merely driving right at the speed limit (35-40 if memory serves).

>
> By contrast, there's a strip of highway in Pennsylvania on which the State
posted a
> speed limit around 55 mph. The local traffic director wanted 25 mph and
got
> overruled, so he set the lights to all go red for anyone traveling faster
than 25
> mph.

The main arterial I live off now has a 45MPH speed limit, but the lights are
synced at 55-57. Yup, the cops hide in the bushes just off the road ala
Barney Fife.

The next town over they put in traffic cams and shortened the yellow from 7
seconds to 4.5. That's another 45 zone. When someone brought a study to the
City Council meeting (regarding the shortening of the yellows), the council
denied the data right in front of their eyes.

Go figger!

Peter Gottlieb

April 13th 04, 10:08 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> When someone brought a study to the
> City Council meeting (regarding the shortening of the yellows), the
council
> denied the data right in front of their eyes.
>

This kind of BS is shortsighted as it breeds contempt for the law and the
whole legal process. These same people probably complain about how there is
such lack of respect these days for their authority.

Michael

April 13th 04, 10:39 PM

"Bill Denton" > wrote
> So, the Cirrus and the BRS system are not inherently less safe than a
> conventional aircraft, but you do have to break some old habits and develop
> a good understaning of how the aircraft works. "That's broke, pull the
> handle", "that's broke, pull the handle", that has to become your mantra.
> Then you'll be OK...

Nothing about this is new. Skydivers have been carrying backup
parachutes for decades. There are some skydivers I know who have
thousands of jumps and have yet to see their backup parachute. On the
other hand, I have a bit under 700 jumps and 8 reserve parachute
deployments that I can think of just now. That's significantly higher
than average (I believe the average is something like 1 in 300-600)
and I can honestly say that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE DEPLOYMENTS WAS
AVOIDABLE. In fact, very few deployments are unavoidable. BASE
jumpers generally do not carry backup parachutes - and don't need
them. They do things differently, and avoid the situations that would
require a reserve deployment.

There is absolutely no question that the ubiquitous backup parachute
in skydiving affects the way people practice that particular
aeronautical activity. Pack your parachute in 5 minutes in a dimly
lit area while chugging a beer? Let some total uncertified stranger
pack it for $5 (quick - how many does he have to do to make a decent
income?) and jump it without inspecting it? Fly your parachute with
lots of other people in formation so tight that you are literally
holding on to other parachutes and other jumpers are holding on to
yours? These are not aberrations - these are normal events at most
drop zones on most weekends. They would be unthinkable without a
backup parachute.

Yet the practice of deploying the reserve parachute is not without
cost or risk. Main parachutes that are jettisoned are sometimes lost,
and they are expensive. Repacks cost money. Freebags/pilot chutes
are often lost, and that means money and downtime. What's more, none
of these costs are covered by insurance. The jumper has to pay these
out of pocket, and jumpers are often college kids who have a hard time
coming up with the money.

What this will mean for the Cirrus is as yet unknown, but not every
safety innovation actually winds up making things safer. ABS is a
perfect example. The one point in favor of the Cirrus parachute -
since it will likely destroy the airframe, there should not be a
tendency to use it for no reason.

Michael

Michael

April 13th 04, 10:57 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote
> Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.

What's the difference between serious and minor? Serious accidents
are those that result in fatalities and hospitalizations; minor
accidents only cause property damage. Lots of accidents that would
have been serious 50 years ago are now minor, because 50 years ago
frames were rigid and transmitted impact directly to the occupants,
seat belts were rarely used, and airbags didn't exist. Getting
impaled on a steering column in a low speed collision was common.
Quite often, accidents were fatal yet the cars were repaired and back
on the road in days.

These days, nobody will design a steering system that will impale you
on the column, seat belt use is common, airbags are near-universal,
crumple zones are the norm, and in general the car is dramatically
safer. These days if you are killed in an accident, you can be
certain nobody will ever drive your car again. Having the car
totalled with no injuries to the occupants is more the norm than the
exception.

Other improvements have been made as well. Today's cars handle
dramatically better, which should allow people to steer around
accidents, stay on the road in wetter conditions, etc. Brake systems
are dramatically more effective and reliable. Drunk driving laws have
grown teeth. We should be having fewer accidents. We're not. People
simply drive more agressively. They follow closer, drive faster in
worse weather, stay at the party later and drive home fatigued (but
legally sober), and in every possible way circumvent all the safety
regulations. The only things that work to improve safety are measures
that make the accident more survivable.

> As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology should
> make them _cheaper_.

Only if they had the same capability. All the mandated safety
improvements have inevitably raised the costs. The crumple zones
haven't helped - not only do they cost money to put in, but they cause
expensive damage in even low-speed collisions. Collision insurance
rates are up in real dollars.

Michael

Dave Stadt

April 13th 04, 11:03 PM

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > When someone brought a study to the
> > City Council meeting (regarding the shortening of the yellows), the
> council
> > denied the data right in front of their eyes.
> >
>
>
> This kind of BS is shortsighted as it breeds contempt for the law and the
> whole legal process. These same people probably complain about how there
is
> such lack of respect these days for their authority.

It is done to raise revenue. Several municipalities, including the city of
chicago, have been very up front in saying so.

Peter Gottlieb

April 13th 04, 11:50 PM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > This kind of BS is shortsighted as it breeds contempt for the law and
the
> > whole legal process. These same people probably complain about how
there
> is
> > such lack of respect these days for their authority.
>
> It is done to raise revenue. Several municipalities, including the city of
> chicago, have been very up front in saying so.
>

Ah, yes. Chicago as an example of fine moral leadership.

Tom Sixkiller

April 14th 04, 12:01 AM

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote
> > Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.
>
> What's the difference between serious and minor? Serious accidents
> are those that result in fatalities and hospitalizations; minor
> accidents only cause property damage.

Fender benders (ie, less than $xxx in damages) versus ones requireing
medical attention

> Lots of accidents that would
> have been serious 50 years ago are now minor, because 50 years ago
> frames were rigid and transmitted impact directly to the occupants,
> seat belts were rarely used, and airbags didn't exist. Getting
> impaled on a steering column in a low speed collision was common.
> Quite often, accidents were fatal yet the cars were repaired and back
> on the road in days.

>
> These days, nobody will design a steering system that will impale you
> on the column, seat belt use is common, airbags are near-universal,
> crumple zones are the norm, and in general the car is dramatically
> safer. These days if you are killed in an accident, you can be
> certain nobody will ever drive your car again. Having the car
> totalled with no injuries to the occupants is more the norm than the
> exception.

Quite so. A few years back I was "kooked" (the tap to the rear fender like
cops use in chases), hit the barrier wall at over 50MPH on a 45 degree
angle, rolled three time and ended up on the roof. The car didn't even look
like a car anymore, but I rolled down the window, unhooked the seat belt and
climbed out. Got worse injuries (cuts) on the glass from the window. Some
kid came running up asking if I was okay; I said "That was a hell of a
ride". When the Fire Department rolled up they immediately brought out the
"jaws of life", but I was sitting on barrier and talking on my cell phone.
Of course, the next day my back told me I'd aged 40 years.

> Other improvements have been made as well. Today's cars handle
> dramatically better, which should allow people to steer around
> accidents, stay on the road in wetter conditions, etc. Brake systems
> are dramatically more effective and reliable.

Yet no one I know, outside of schools like Bondurant, teach anything more
than hitting the brakes.

>Drunk driving laws have
> grown teeth. We should be having fewer accidents. We're not. People
> simply drive more agressively.

Fun Question: In your opinion, which is worse: aggressive driving, or
careless driving?

> They follow closer, drive faster in
> worse weather, stay at the party later and drive home fatigued (but
> legally sober), and in every possible way circumvent all the safety
> regulations. The only things that work to improve safety are measures
> that make the accident more survivable.

More survivable and the vehicles make them more avoidable. Think of the
marshmallow suspensions of days gone by and imagine trying to make some of
the moves we don't think tiwce about today in the world of wishbone
suspensions, MacPherson struts, rack and pinion steering, radial tires...

>
> > As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology
should
> > make them _cheaper_.
>
> Only if they had the same capability. All the mandated safety
> improvements have inevitably raised the costs. The crumple zones
> haven't helped - not only do they cost money to put in, but they cause
> expensive damage in even low-speed collisions. Collision insurance
> rates are up in real dollars.

Good post!

No-Fault insurance was supposed to reduce the rates, but haven't either.
States in the Southwest, even with better year round driving conditions are
having soaring accident rates due to the influx of transients.

I wonder if we'll ever see action to improve drivers attention spans, given
the proliferation of distractions such as CD's, cell phones, kids in rear
car seats...

Richard Kaplan

April 14th 04, 01:06 AM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...>

> Yet no one I know, outside of schools like Bondurant, teach anything more
> than hitting the brakes.

I doubt it would ever happen, but wouldn't it be a nice idea to have a
higher speeding limit for drivers who passed a high-speed driver safety
course or some equivalent of driver recurrent training.

If it is safe for the police to exceed the speed limit, why cannot the
public do this as safely if they take appropriate training?

More importantly, is it really plausible that the same speed limit applies
to all drivers regardless of skill?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

David Reinhart

April 14th 04, 02:42 AM

What difference does it make if it's a "crutch for pilot error"? If the
error under discussion would have led to the deaths of the aircraft
occupants then pulling the chute was the right thing to do. Maybe the
pilot's training was inadequate to deal with the situation, maybe another
pilot in the same situation could have handled it. It doesn't matter.
The *pilot in command* decided his best option was to use the chute.

Somebody else said that most GA accidents are attributed to pilot error,
but that covers a lot of ground. Loss of control after vacuum failure in
actual IMC is, I believe, classed as pilot error because pilots are
supposed to be able to handle a partial panel situation. The vacuum
failure is usually listed as a contributing cause. The problem is, how
likely are you to recover after you've lost it while flying partial
panel? Having the chute would give you one final chance at saving the
people. To hell with the airplane.

Dave Reinhart

Ron Lee wrote:

> Thomas, I love GPS. No way will VOR navigation be my primary method.
> But let's get the facts about this parachute deployment and assess
> whether it really saved four people from an otherwise certain
> death...or was just a crutch for pilot error.
>
> Ron Lee
>
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
> >Jeeze, what is it with pilots and change? Anything new in GA is
> >bad-mouthed here - while at the same time everybody and his brother
> >complains about the old technology we have to use. You can't have it
> >both ways.
> >
> >--
> >Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >

David Reinhart

April 14th 04, 02:50 AM

Landing on big high tension lines would probably cut the airplane up. As to the
Interstate and downtown, less damage would probably result than if the aircraft
hit the ground at some speed above stall.

Dave Reinhart

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> "Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > There are less than perfect pilots. Some pilots need crutches. Without the
> > crutch, 4 people likely would have been seriously injured. The plane came
> > down amongst pine trees. Even if the crutch was for ineptitude, it was
> still
> > a good thing.
>
> What would happen if the BRS set the airplane down on an interstate highway?
> On top of power lines? In a lake? Downtown in a highly populated urban
> area?
>
> Is it possible under these conditions that injuries could have occurred in a
> BRS landing whereas conventionally handling the emergency could result in no
> injuries?
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

Dave Stadt

April 14th 04, 04:40 AM

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > This kind of BS is shortsighted as it breeds contempt for the law and
> the
> > > whole legal process. These same people probably complain about how
> there
> > is
> > > such lack of respect these days for their authority.
> >
> > It is done to raise revenue. Several municipalities, including the city
of
> > chicago, have been very up front in saying so.
> >
>
>
> Ah, yes. Chicago as an example of fine moral leadership.

It's an equal opportunity city. They screw everybody.

Big John

April 14th 04, 05:31 AM

David

The seat I ejected in was powered by a 37 mm artillery shell :o(

Used to keep one on my desk as a curio :o)

Big John

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:08:04 GMT, David Reinhart
> wrote:

>It's my understanding that ejection seats aren't allowed on civil aircraft
>because the pyrotechnics used are illegal for civillians to own. They're
>considered controlled military munitions.
>
>Dave Reinhart

>
>Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
>> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > I don't understand this. We're talking about a life-saving device, people
>> > start using it and some here actually suggest those pilots weren't macho
>> > enough to try to get out of their emergency without being a sissy and
>> pulling
>> > the chute? This is unbelievable. "Real men don't use chutes"? What BS!
>>
>> Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
>> They would be life-saving, too.

----clip----

Richard Kaplan

April 14th 04, 05:58 AM

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...

> Landing on big high tension lines would probably cut the airplane up. As
to the
> Interstate and downtown, less damage would probably result than if the
aircraft
> hit the ground at some speed above stall.

Are you assuming traffic on the interstate?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Tom Sixkiller

April 14th 04, 06:28 AM

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> > Yet no one I know, outside of schools like Bondurant, teach anything
more
> > than hitting the brakes.
>
> I doubt it would ever happen, but wouldn't it be a nice idea to have a
> higher speeding limit for drivers who passed a high-speed driver safety
> course or some equivalent of driver recurrent training.
>
> If it is safe for the police to exceed the speed limit, why cannot the
> public do this as safely if they take appropriate training?
>
> More importantly, is it really plausible that the same speed limit applies
> to all drivers regardless of skill?

And naturally the rules are written for the lowest common denominator (i.e.,
your 81 year old grandfather).

BllFs6

April 14th 04, 02:30 PM

>David
>
>The seat I ejected in was powered by a 37 mm artillery shell :o(
>
>Used to keep one on my desk as a curio :o)
>
>
>Big John

So you literally were shot in the ass by a 37 mm artillery shell ! :)

Now thats a distinction that carries some real bragging rights down at the
local pub!

take care

Blll

G.R. Patterson III

April 14th 04, 03:34 PM

David Reinhart wrote:
>
> It's my understanding that ejection seats aren't allowed on civil aircraft
> because the pyrotechnics used are illegal for civillians to own. They're
> considered controlled military munitions.

It's possible for private citizens to obtain permits to own military munitions.
They're classed as "destructive devices" and controlled by BATF.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

Big John

April 14th 04, 06:54 PM

Tom

Come to Houston. New Mayor just synchronized part of the down town
lights and is working on the rest and he's even a Democrat :o)

Our new Tooter Ville Trolley, running down main street, is still
hitting cars. Has had around 35 accidents since start of business
early in year (just before Super Bowel) :o(

Big John

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:35:50 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

----clip----

David CL Francis

April 14th 04, 09:41 PM

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 at 19:53:19 in message
>, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Both car and GA accident rates have dramatically declined with technical
>improvements to safety over the last decades. This expert is simply not supported
>by the numbers.

I was convinced that that was the main effect until I read a book called
'Risk' by John Adams. Now I do believe in risk compensation and the
possibility, for example that better and safer cars may lead to more
accidents to pedestrians.

The biggest factor for cars appears to be that the more traffic there
is, then the more the accident rate falls.

In the UK the highest annual road fatalities were in 1926. From then a
steady decline took place until the last couple of years. The only
exception to that was the war years when exceptional factors sent
accidents through the roof. (Example: complete darkness everywhere at
night and vehicles with almost non-existent head lights.)
--
David CL Francis

Tom Sixkiller

April 14th 04, 10:04 PM

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Tom
>
> Come to Houston. New Mayor just synchronized part of the down town
> lights and is working on the rest and he's even a Democrat :o)

Synchronizing them to do what? :~)

>
> Our new Tooter Ville Trolley, running down main street, is still
> hitting cars. Has had around 35 accidents since start of business
> early in year (just before Super Bowel) :o(

Isn't that part of the downtown entertainment arrangement, bumpercars?

>

Our town put up traffic lights at a new entrance/exit to the Civic Plaza
that empties onto the main drag. If just ONE car tries to exit, anytime, day
or night, sensors turn that light GREEN and turns the main drag RED...even
if 20 cars are coming down the main drag.

Nice to have one's priorities in line, no? Can't have bureaucrats waiting on
the citizen-scum while trying to get home and watch MTV.

Buff5200

April 15th 04, 02:23 AM

>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
>>>They would be life-saving, too.
>>>
I think I read somewhere that the entire ejection seat assembly
including supports, rails, explosive hatch,
ect weighs about 1,000lb each. Do you want to be a passenger in a
non-ejection seat when the
PIC has one? We would need 4 ejection seats in a 172. Let's see now, 172
usable weight limit
minus 4,000lb is ....

Kind of eats into the gross weight limits of small GA aircraft...

Greg Copeland

April 15th 04, 02:51 PM

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:23:20 -0400, Buff5200 wrote:

>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
>>>>They would be life-saving, too.
>>>>
> I think I read somewhere that the entire ejection seat assembly
> including supports, rails, explosive hatch,
> ect weighs about 1,000lb each. Do you want to be a passenger in a
> non-ejection seat when the
> PIC has one? We would need 4 ejection seats in a 172. Let's see now, 172
> usable weight limit
> minus 4,000lb is ....
>
> Kind of eats into the gross weight limits of small GA aircraft...

Not to mention that ejection seats are used in jets because of their high
speed and design, which often make manual ejection impossible. If WWII
pilots can manually jump, while shot and being shot at, from a 400+MPH
plane, I think people could do it at a more common 120-300mph range, while
uninjured.

Of course, I think you'll have a hard time convincing your passengers that
you're a good pilot while you're wearing that chute on your back. ;)
"No...seriously...it's just a fashion statement." ;) :)

Greg Copeland

April 15th 04, 03:06 PM

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:04:35 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tom
>>
>> Come to Houston. New Mayor just synchronized part of the down town
>> lights and is working on the rest and he's even a Democrat :o)
>
> Synchronizing them to do what? :~)
>

The synchronization is with the other lights down a given straight line
path.

It's my understanding that, when traveling in a single direction, the
lights are purposely timed to minimize the number of interestions you can
transverse at any given green light cycle. The idea is that it prevents
people from speeding through these heavily traveled routes and requires
the drivers to pay more attention to traffic and signals around them. I
believe it also reduced the number of red light speeders. Last I heard,
doing so resulted in fewer accidents at the expense of greater travel time
and more frequent stops.

Reversing this by synchronising many green lights in a row may cause the
accident rates to rise.

How factual this is, I don't know. I just remember reading about this
some number of years ago.

Capt.Doug

April 15th 04, 03:17 PM

>"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message > Are you assuming traffic on the
>interstate?

Every situation is different. On a sunny day with light traffic, it probably
wouldn't make much difference. However, on the day in question, it would
have been hard to find the interstate as forward visibilty was restricted.
Additionally, the ceiling was low. The pilot wouldn't have had much time to
manuever to avoid the traffic and the traffic wouldn't have had much time to
react once the pilot sighted the interstate. Wet pavement would increase
stopping distances.

More options equals better risk management. In this specific incident, the
occupants would likely have been severly injured or killed if the plane had
forward motion when it encountered the pine trees.

D.

Peter Gottlieb

April 15th 04, 03:25 PM

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not to mention that ejection seats are used in jets because of their high
> speed and design, which often make manual ejection impossible. If WWII
> pilots can manually jump, while shot and being shot at, from a 400+MPH
> plane, I think people could do it at a more common 120-300mph range, while
> uninjured.

It's all a matter of odds, and increasing the odds for the pilot. Remember
that plenty of jump planes have gone down and the jumpers were unable or
unwilling to exit through the open door.

> Of course, I think you'll have a hard time convincing your passengers that
> you're a good pilot while you're wearing that chute on your back. ;)
> "No...seriously...it's just a fashion statement." ;) :)

Reminds me of the joke which ends with the stewardess announcing: "...and
don't worry, the pilot has gone for help."

Richard Kaplan

April 15th 04, 04:34 PM

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...

> More options equals better risk management. In this specific incident, the
> occupants would likely have been severly injured or killed if the plane
had
> forward motion when it encountered the pine trees.

There may well be advantages from a BRS, including a softer landing on pine
trees

I do not, however, believe that the occupants would likely have been
severely injured or killed if the plane had forward motion when it
encountered pine trees. It is quite common for airplanes to land on trees
and then the occupants walk away unharmed; the pilot needs to keep flying
the airplane all the way until touchdown and he also needs to land into the
wind.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Dan Luke

April 15th 04, 11:35 PM

"Big John" wrote:
> Come to Houston. New Mayor just synchronized part
> of the down town lights and is working on the rest and
> he's even a Democrat :o)

When did they get un-synchronized? The downtown lights were
synchronized in Houston when I learned to drive in the '60s and were
still that way when I left in 1990.

> Our new Tooter Ville Trolley, running down main street,
> is still hitting cars. Has had around 35 accidents since
> start of business early in year
> (just before Super Bowel) :o(

I'm not totally up to speed on that thing, but from what I hear from
family & friends in Houston, it sounds like the dumbest boondoggle in
America.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

David Reinhart

April 16th 04, 01:02 AM

The only aircraft I had in mind were ex-warbirds and maybe the new Javelin. I
distinctly remember a couple warbird crashes in the SoCal area when I was young
where the pilot could have been saved by the ejection seat but the press reported
it as deactivated. Obviously a Martin-Baker zero-zero ejection seat is not
feasible for GA aircraft.

Dave Reinhart

Buff5200 wrote:

> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
> >>>They would be life-saving, too.
> >>>
> I think I read somewhere that the entire ejection seat assembly
> including supports, rails, explosive hatch,
> ect weighs about 1,000lb each. Do you want to be a passenger in a
> non-ejection seat when the
> PIC has one? We would need 4 ejection seats in a 172. Let's see now, 172
> usable weight limit
> minus 4,000lb is ....
>
> Kind of eats into the gross weight limits of small GA aircraft...

G.R. Patterson III

April 16th 04, 02:10 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > Our new Tooter Ville Trolley, running down main street,
> > is still hitting cars. Has had around 35 accidents since
> > start of business early in year
> > (just before Super Bowel) :o(
>
> I'm not totally up to speed on that thing, but from what I hear from
> family & friends in Houston, it sounds like the dumbest boondoggle in
> America.

No, people are simply re-learning why most cities got rid of streetcars years ago.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

John Ousterhout

April 16th 04, 05:39 AM

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:34:25 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>I do not, however, believe that the occupants would likely have been
>severely injured or killed if the plane had forward motion when it
>encountered pine trees. It is quite common for airplanes to land on trees
>and then the occupants walk away unharmed; the pilot needs to keep flying
>the airplane all the way until touchdown and he also needs to land into the
>wind.

It is also quite common for a landing in trees to be fatal. I
believe that the experts would disagree with you about landing in
trees.

Here in Western Oregon we have more fir trees than pine trees but I
would always choose to use the BRS rather than execute a forced
landing in the trees.

I was skeptical about airbags in autos, but I've been convinced of
their effectiveness. I was also skeptical of the BRS but I'm becoming
convinced of their effectiveness.

Did you also acuse pilots of flying carelessly once they had seat
belts?

- John Ousterhout -

Morgans

April 16th 04, 06:02 AM

"Greg Copeland" > wrote
>
> Reversing this by synchronising many green lights in a row may cause the
> accident rates to rise.
>
> How factual this is, I don't know. I just remember reading about this
> some number of years ago.

Where I grew up, there was a 6 lane highway, about 25 miles long. The
lights were timed to let you drive the whole length, with one stop to get
into the cycle. It controlled speeding, because if you went too fast, you
had to slow down for a red light. I fail to see the down side to that.

I wish NCDOT in this county would see that!
--
Jim in NC

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/10/2004

Tom Sixkiller

April 16th 04, 08:18 AM

"John Ousterhout" >
wrote in message ...

>
> I was skeptical about airbags in autos, but I've been convinced of
> their effectiveness. I was also skeptical of the BRS but I'm becoming
> convinced of their effectiveness.
>
> Did you also acuse pilots of flying carelessly once they had seat
> belts?

Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves invincible
when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).

Same thing with St. Christopher medals, I'd imagine. :~)

BllFs6

April 16th 04, 02:10 PM

>Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves invincible
>when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).
>
>Same thing with St. Christopher medals, I'd imagine. :~

Well, GOD HELP US ALL if they start selling aviation grade plastic Jesuses for
mounting on the instrument panel.....pilots will start taking all kinds of
risks then :)

take care

Blll

Tom Sixkiller

April 16th 04, 05:41 PM

"BllFs6" > wrote in message
...
> >Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves
invincible
> >when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).
> >
> >Same thing with St. Christopher medals, I'd imagine. :~
>
> Well, GOD HELP US ALL if they start selling aviation grade plastic Jesuses
for
> mounting on the instrument panel.....pilots will start taking all kinds of
> risks then :)
>

I'll see your plastic Jesus and raise you two medal St.Christopher's...

Dave Stadt

April 16th 04, 11:38 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BllFs6" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves
> invincible
> > >when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).
> > >
> > >Same thing with St. Christopher medals, I'd imagine. :~
> >
> > Well, GOD HELP US ALL if they start selling aviation grade plastic
Jesuses
> for
> > mounting on the instrument panel.....pilots will start taking all kinds
of
> > risks then :)
> >
>
> I'll see your plastic Jesus and raise you two medal St.Christopher's...

Christopher was de dashboarded wasn't he?

John Ousterhout

April 16th 04, 11:55 PM

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:18:54 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>> Did you also acuse pilots of flying carelessly once they had seat
>> belts?
>
>Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves invincible
>when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).

Could you please cite a source for this dubious "fact".

- J.O.-

Tom Sixkiller

April 17th 04, 01:32 AM

"John Ousterhout" >
wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:18:54 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Did you also acuse pilots of flying carelessly once they had seat
> >> belts?
> >
> >Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves
invincible
> >when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).
>
> Could you please cite a source for this dubious "fact".
>
Common talk back in the 60's; TV ad promo's.

You know, things did happen before you were born and before there was an
internet. :~)

Tom Sixkiller

April 17th 04, 01:34 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "BllFs6" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves
> > invincible
> > > >when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).
> > > >
> > > >Same thing with St. Christopher medals, I'd imagine. :~
> > >
> > > Well, GOD HELP US ALL if they start selling aviation grade plastic
> Jesuses
> > for
> > > mounting on the instrument panel.....pilots will start taking all
kinds
> of
> > > risks then :)
> > >
> >
> > I'll see your plastic Jesus and raise you two medal St.Christopher's...
>
>
> Christopher was de dashboarded wasn't he?
>
Yes...it was really horrible. Accident rates skyrocketed.

Thomas Borchert

April 17th 04, 09:20 AM

Tom,

> Common talk back in the 60's; TV ad promo's.
>

What proof! So we must have aliens amongst us, too, I guess.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ash Wyllie

April 17th 04, 01:58 PM

John Ousterhout opined

>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:18:54 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
>wrote:

>>> Did you also acuse pilots of flying carelessly once they had seat
>>> belts?
>>
>>Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves invincible
>>when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).

>Could you please cite a source for this dubious "fact".

>- J.O.-

There is documentation for a simular effect. In the mid-80s Maggie Thatcher
mandated seatbelt usage in England. There was a drop in driver and passenger
deaths. There was also an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths. What was
not included in the New Scientist article was the net change in deaths.

It is strongly suggested that safety devices change operator behavior. See
also "moral hazard" and insurance.t

-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

John Ousterhout

April 17th 04, 04:11 PM

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:32:51 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>> >Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves
>invincible
>> >when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).

John Ousterhout wrote:
>> Could you please cite a source for this dubious "fact".

Tom SIxkiler wrote:
>Common talk back in the 60's; TV ad promo's.
>
>You know, things did happen before you were born and before there was an
>internet. :~)

I did not ask for a hyperlink, nor did I imply that an Internet source
was required. You may cite a newspaper or magazine if you wish.
However "common talk" is unacceptable and you know it. Had you asked
for corroboration and received "common talk" as an answer, I would
expect you to reply "bull****".

- J.O.-

Tom Sixkiller

April 17th 04, 05:03 PM

"John Ousterhout" >
wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:32:51 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> wrote:
>
> >> >Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves
> >invincible
> >> >when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).
>
> John Ousterhout wrote:
> >> Could you please cite a source for this dubious "fact".
>
> Tom SIxkiler wrote:
> >Common talk back in the 60's; TV ad promo's.
> >
> >You know, things did happen before you were born and before there was an
> >internet. :~)
>
> I did not ask for a hyperlink, nor did I imply that an Internet source
> was required. You may cite a newspaper or magazine if you wish.
> However "common talk" is unacceptable and you know it. Had you asked
> for corroboration and received "common talk" as an answer, I would
> expect you to reply "bull****".

Why don't you go screw yourself, punk.

Big John

April 18th 04, 03:45 AM

Dan

The ethnic broad who ran Metro and put in, got a bonus and skipped
town before the S*** H** the F** :o(

Who but Texas A & M (they were contracted to evaluate the problem)
would OK putting a 60 MPH train down the center of a 4 lane City
street :o( and not expect problems when only two lanes were left for
two way auto traffic (one each way) ?????

I'm riding the Trolley Monday going to Doc and will have first hand
experience on it then.

Funny system. You buy a ticket and get on and there is no one to check
your ticket. Wonder the cost of ticket checker vs lost revenue for
people not buying tickets?????????

Crazy City, Houston.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:35:13 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Big John" wrote:
>> Come to Houston. New Mayor just synchronized part
>> of the down town lights and is working on the rest and
>> he's even a Democrat :o)
>
>When did they get un-synchronized? The downtown lights were
>synchronized in Houston when I learned to drive in the '60s and were
>still that way when I left in 1990.
>
>> Our new Tooter Ville Trolley, running down main street,
>> is still hitting cars. Has had around 35 accidents since
>> start of business early in year
>> (just before Super Bowel) :o(
>
>I'm not totally up to speed on that thing, but from what I hear from
>family & friends in Houston, it sounds like the dumbest boondoggle in
>America.

Big John

April 18th 04, 03:53 AM

Mary

Short answer. My sources tell me that it is the FAA and having
explosives in/on the aircraft.

Big John

Big John

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:27:56 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:08:04 GMT, David Reinhart
> wrote:
>
>> It's my understanding that ejection seats aren't allowed on civil aircraft
>> because the pyrotechnics used are illegal for civillians to own. They're
>> considered controlled military munitions.
>
>Can the fact that ejection seats weigh something like 600 lb each have
>anything to do with their not being used in GA aircraft?
>
>Privately owned aircraft can have working ejection seats, though.
>
>Mary

Big John

April 18th 04, 04:12 AM

Bill

Have you seen the clip of the Navy bird that lost AB's coming off the
CAT shot? He banked 20-30 degrees and ejected and made it with his
Zero Zero system.. If he hadn't banked, the Carrier would have run
over him and after going through the props not much is left (my Navy
friends told me when I was with them in the tail hook Sq)..

Big John

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:26:19 -0500, "Bill Denton"
> wrote:

>NOTE: I'm working from memory of some things I read about three years ago.
>If I have any errors or omissions please post a correction.
>training and human nature.

----clip----

>Consider a pilot in a jet fighter on an aircraft carrier. He gives his
>"thumbs up", the catapult fires, and he begins his takeoff roll. But just
>after he rotates, all engines flame out. The pilot then has two options: a
>restart, or an eject. If he ejects, he saves himself, but he loses the
>airplane. If he restarts, he and the plane both come out OK. But there's a
>problem with the restart option: if it is not begun immediately or if it
>takes too long, an eject will not work; the chute will not open.
>
>So the pilot is taught that under this set of circumstances he shouldn't
>even consider a restart, he should just eject.

----clip----

Big John

April 18th 04, 04:21 AM

Richard

Come to Houston. We run stop and stop on our InterStates and Freeways
in town. Verticl impact would be greater than horizontal from traffic
probably?

Big John

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:58:10 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>
>"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Landing on big high tension lines would probably cut the airplane up. As
>to the
>> Interstate and downtown, less damage would probably result than if the
>aircraft
>> hit the ground at some speed above stall.
>
>Are you assuming traffic on the interstate?
>
>
>--------------------
>Richard Kaplan, CFII

>www.flyimc.com
>

Thomas Borchert

April 18th 04, 09:25 AM

Ash,

> There was a drop in driver and passenger
> deaths. There was also an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths.
>

Yes? So? What's the correlation?

There is a steady decline in both the number of newborn babies in
Germany and the number of storks living here. Is that proof for the
traditional belief that storks bring the babies?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

StellaStar

April 18th 04, 10:52 AM

SlackKiller claims: >> >> >Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people
thinking themselves
>> >invincible
>
Oyster responds: >> Had you asked
>> for corroboration and received "common talk" as an answer, I would
>> expect you to reply "bull****".
>
SixKilled adroitly responds:>Why don't you go screw yourself, punk.
>

Proof positive that at least one jerk considers himself invincible, and
inarguable. Take away his seatbelts!

Ash Wyllie

April 18th 04, 02:09 PM

Thomas Borchert opined

>Ash,

>> There was a drop in driver and passenger
>> deaths. There was also an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths.
>>

>Yes? So? What's the correlation?

Change in law, deaths inside cars go down with increased seatbelt usage as
expected. But there was an increase in deaths outside of cars at the same
time.

Sounds like a correlation to me.

>There is a steady decline in both the number of newborn babies in
>Germany and the number of storks living here. Is that proof for the
>traditional belief that storks bring the babies?

It's a correlation.

There is a difference. There is no theory to tie storks and babies together.
There is a reason to tie seatbelt usage ( _and other safety devices_ ) to
changes in death rates. Insurance changes behaviour.

-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

Tom Sixkiller

April 19th 04, 04:28 AM

"StellaStar" > wrote in message
...
> SlackKiller claims: >> >> >Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people
> thinking themselves
> >> >invincible
> >
> Oyster responds: >> Had you asked
> >> for corroboration and received "common talk" as an answer, I would
> >> expect you to reply "bull****".
> >
> SixKilled adroitly responds:>Why don't you go screw yourself, punk.
> >
>
> Proof positive that at least one jerk considers himself invincible, and
> inarguable. Take away his seatbelts!

If you notice, I said (IIRC) which means, since you either don't know or
don't bother to pay close enough attention, "If I Recall Correctly"). How
does that claim invincibility?

I was making a comment, not trying to score debating points with a punk who
wasn't me to corroborate something that was a passing fancy 40 years ago.

If you think this spunk that comes back as so high and mighty is
"invincible" then have at it. Stella, you're a nice lady, but sometimes
you're really full of it.

Tom Sixkiller

April 19th 04, 04:32 AM

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert opined
>
> >Ash,
>
> >> There was a drop in driver and passenger
> >> deaths. There was also an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths.
> >>
>
> >Yes? So? What's the correlation?
>
> Change in law, deaths inside cars go down with increased seatbelt usage as
> expected. But there was an increase in deaths outside of cars at the same
> time.
>
> Sounds like a correlation to me.
>
> >There is a steady decline in both the number of newborn babies in
> >Germany and the number of storks living here. Is that proof for the
> >traditional belief that storks bring the babies?
>
> It's a correlation.
>
> There is a difference. There is no theory to tie storks and babies
together.
> There is a reason to tie seatbelt usage ( _and other safety devices_ ) to
> changes in death rates. Insurance changes behaviour.

BINGO!! Ash!

Finally someone understand the psychological aspects of something as simple
and commonplace as driving a car.